Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

In the Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia lawsuit in Maryland, the District Court paused discover for a week, leading to some conjecture that the parties were working toward a resolution of the suit. That was not to be. The stay expired this past Wednesday, and Judge Xinis issued a revised schedule for expedited discovery. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.107.0_1.pdf

In addition to depositions of previously identified deponents, the revised order provides that by no later than Wednesday, May 7, 2025, Plaintiffs may move for leave of court to conduct up to two depositions of individuals with knowledge and authority to testify regarding the matters identified at ECF No. 79.

President Trump's acknowledgement during his ABC interview that he could get Abrego Garcia back with a phone call but he is merely unwilling to do so gives the Plaintiffs a good faith basis to seek leave to depose the President. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBwCUPttprw&t=1282s (Discussion of Abrego Garcia begins at 19:20.)

That would be interesting.

[Kazinski]

In other Albrego Garcia news, Hakeem Jeffries is reportedly telling Democratic members of Congress to quit going to El Salvador

"Jeffries Wants Dems to Put an End to the El Salvador Trips
Cory Booker and the Hispanic Caucus were planning on going. But Democratic leadership seems to want El Salvador trips to stop for a while."
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/what-happened-to-democrats-trips-to-el-salvador-van-hollen-booker-jeffries-abrego-garcia

I don't know whether it was the audio tape USA today got of his wife in court:
"Audio obtained by USA TODAY from a 2020 court hearing in Maryland shows Jennifer Vasquez Sura pleading with a judge for temporary protection from her husband, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the wrongfully deported Salvadoran migrant at the center of a deportation storm.

Abrego Garcia “grabbed me from my hair, and then he slapped me,” Vasquez Sura said in her 2020 testimony to a judge."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/01/kilmar-abrego-garcia-wife-domestic-abuse-audio/83395817007/

Or it was maybe its the body cam footage released by THP showing the actual stop in the van, and THP officers discussing at the time that he was probably being paid to transport the van full of illegals to Maryland.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when you believed Cuban illegals should get special treatment because they vote Republican in a swing state?? That was weird, right??

[Kazinski]

Sorry Sam, I muted you a long time ago.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I read maybe 3 words of your comments and then make my comment. I have no clue what any of your and anyone else’s comments or blog post say on this pathetic zombie blog that lost relevancy years ago.

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

Wow, you're just like me except uglier, stupider, more reviled, friendless, single, childless, shorter, less hair, way more feminine, gay, and black.

[David Nieporent]

Or it was maybe its the body cam footage released by THP showing the actual stop in the van, and THP officers discussing at the time that he was probably being paid to transport the van full of illegals to Maryland.

So I watched this video on Fox. (I mean, I don't watch Fox, but Fox's report was posted by someone on Twitter.) It of course shows nothing more than some cops gossiping. It's about as damning as an Olive Garden commercial.

[Speaking for normal people]

David , please copy some other trite meme than the Olive Garden one.
Do you still say "groovy' and "bees knees" ?

[Frank Drackman]

David Neverpotent thought the Zapruder Film was "just a parade going by"

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

lol that's so true

[Michael P]

He also denied that Hunter's laptop was incriminating. I guess he thinks the drug use was photoshopped, the gun was ackchually a convincing fake, and the bribe-seeking was about totally legitimate gratuities.

[Kazinski]

But I thought you said it was a fabrication by the administration before.

In any case I think you will concede a judge would find that a cops "experience and training" on the matter would at least give rise to probable cause if the matter had been pushed back then, in fact it might even be enough now to sustain an indictment, especially if they can identify the passenger in the front seat.

[David Nieporent]

Judges give very very very inordinate credence to a cop rotely reciting, "Based on my training and experience, I am aware that…" Moreover, the standard for probable cause is low. However, I'm not quite understanding precisely what you're finding probable cause for. A search, or an arrest?

No, they could not get an indictment, even if they could prove the guy in the car was illegal, which doesn't seem likely. What evidence is there, at this point in time, of Abrego Garcia's knowledge of that illegality?

[Kazinski]

I think we went over that.

The owner of the van he was driving had actually been convicted of human trafficking and sentenced to prison, then deported.

Garcia described the owner as his boss, and said he was transporting the people at his behest.

No court is going to say that is not sufficient grounds for an indictment on the charge.

I'm not sure which Tennessee district court would have jurisdiction, but I am sure that all of them are a long way from the DC district courts in more ways than one.

[David Nieporent]

What does the fact that a different person a couple of years earlier got convicted of something tell us about Abrego Garcia's knowledge of something else?

[not guilty]

The traffic stop was near Cookeville, which is in the Middle District of Tennessee. That district has a good group of federal judges.

What federal statute do you claim that Abrego Garcia violated, Kazinski? Please cite by number.

[Riva]

He's an illegal alien gangbanger trafficking other illegals so we could start with 8 U.S. Code §§ 1324, 1325. And one could explore the many other related laws and regulations governing human trafficking.

[not guilty]

Well, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 deals with unlawful entry into the United States, so it would not apply to transporting aliens already here.

I surmise that you are referring to 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), which provides that any person commits an offense who:

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law [Emphasis added]

Merely driving a vehicle containing passengers down an interstate highway in a state hundreds of miles inland from any border or coastal does not ipso facto further the passengers' unlawful entry into the U.S., and the passengers' mere presence in the country after having so entered is a civil infraction, but not a criminal offense.

Every word of a criminal statute matters. Probable cause here is a stretch, and I highly doubt that any federal prosecutor would seek such an indictment.

[Riva]

Garcia is an illegal super genius (actually an illegal alien gangbanger member of a designated terrorist organization), if illegal entry alone were at issue, he is guilty of violating sec.1325. So is every other illegal in the vehicle, which Garcia, the aforementioned illegal alien gangbanger, is using to traffic the other illegals. The illegal alien gangbanger is a link in the transportation chain. Yeah the statutes matter. So do facts.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah the statutes matter. So do facts.

Well, the actual fact is that there's no evidence in existence that any of the people in the car (other than Garcia) were illegal.

[not guilty]

We were talking about what offense(s), if any, Abrego Garcia could be prosecuted for arising out of the 2022 traffic stop. Prosecution for his own entry into the United States would be time barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) -- attempts to deport him having been undertaken in 2019 or prior thereto.

The passengers' entry obviously predated the traffic stop, so their being driven in the vehicle was not in furtherance of such illegal entry, which by that time was a fait accompli.

Facts do indeed matter.

[Riva]

There is no statute of limitations for deporting an illegal, especially one with tattooed membership in a designated terrorist organization. And a bad Hollywood movie couldn't have written a more obvious human trafficking scene. Don't know why you're both still trying to promote the garbage lies surrounding this case. I guess you didn't get the memo, democrats are now trying to distance themselves from this embarrassment.

[not guilty]

"There is no statute of limitations for deporting an illegal, especially one with tattooed membership in a designated terrorist organization."

Riva, you are one of those who posit that Abrego Garcia can be criminally prosecuted for an offense arising out of his driving a car on Interstate 40 -- based on 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Own what you have said. As soon as I pointed out an insurmountable obstacle to such a prosecution, you immediately shifted gears to yap and yammer about deportation (a civil process).

You leave a trail of slime behind you wherever you go.

[Sarcastr0]

No court is going to say that is not sufficient grounds for an indictment on the charge.

You've got nothing but vibes, so you dress it up like you're a practicing attorney.

You seem to have no idea what kind of predicate is required for an indictment. Certainly you have no experience in criminal practice to allow you to assert this with any confidence.

Nothing wrong with being a layperson examining legal stuff. But holding yourself out like you're more than that and then making confidently wrong assertions?
That's what it looks like when you would rather feel right than be right.

[not guilty]

"Nothing wrong with being a layperson examining legal stuff. But holding yourself out like you're more than that and then making confidently wrong assertions?"

As Mark Twain (may have) said, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”

[Mr. Bumble]

"That's what it looks like when you would rather feel right than be right. "
...and who would know better than you!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Well, some people do think Olive Garden is a crime against proper Italian cuisine though I'm okay with it. FWIW.

[not guilty]

"Or it was maybe its the body cam footage released by THP showing the actual stop in the van, and THP officers discussing at the time that he was probably being paid to transport the van full of illegals to Maryland."

Kazinski, the most relevant aspect of the Tennessee Highway Patrol stop of Abrego Garcia is that, after detaining him for two hours and checking with the feds during that time, the troopers allowed Abrego Garcis to go on his merry way. That strongly suggests that any suspicions of more nefarious activity were dispelled.

Had that not been the case, the feds would likely have suggested that he be arrested on the driver's license violation (for which there was probable cause), and he could have been interrogated about other matters while in custody.

For all your desperately throwing pasta against the wall, this just doesn't stick.

[Kazinski]

It merely means they determined it was a federal crime, and he Feds were not interested in exercising their jurisdiction.

But like I said above, they have enough evidence in that bodycam footage, along with Garcia's assertion that the owner of the van was his boss, and the fact the owner of the van had already been convicted of using that van for human trafficking, to indict Garcia tomorrow for the 2022 stop.

If he does ever come back into the country that will be the first order of business.

[Michael Ejercito]

What exactly can a court order in this situation?

Suppose the government mistakenly deported an American citizen to Israel on October 5, 2023. In court, the government concedes that the deportation was erroneous. the court orders the government to bring the American back.

And this American taken hostage by Hamas on October 7, 2023.

An order to make transportation arrangements for this American taken hostage, as soon as he is able and willing, would not be controversial.

But can a court order the Administration to send in SEAL Team Six to rescue this American hostage?

Could they order the Administration to invade Gaza?

Could they order the Administration to negotiate with Hamas, let alone accede to any demand Hamas makes, in exchange for this hostage?

[David Nieporent]

How about instead of this inanalogous hypothetical, the U.S. was paying Hamas to hold him hostage?

[Speaking for normal people]

IN logic class they tell you NEVER to argue a hypothetical against a fact, makes you look moronic.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Don't to go law school then. Or don't become a lawyer, and certainly don't show up in front of a judge to argue a case. Counterfactuals are asked about all the time.

[Speaking for normal people]

Sorry, Dan , wrong as you can be.
Bad with words.worse with logic

The key difference is that a counterfactual specifically refers to a situation that is contrary to what actually happened, while a hypothetical can refer to anything that might happen in the future.

We saw a great example of how wrong you are recently.
It was Kagan (might have been Sotomayor) in the case about parents opting out of courses in which are LGBTQ storybooks.She said that well hypothetically where will we draw the line and of course that is a tacit admission that the plaintiffs are right but she won't say so on the actual case because she can't draw the line on when some parent can opt their kid out of any course, say Chemistry. So what actually happened she knows is right but on the basis of a hypothetical that has not happened she balks like you do

[Joe_dallas]

Its inane that the left thinks such a topic is even age appropriate for elementary school kids.

Basic math, science and reading skills are below par, and the left wants to devote education time to an inappropriate topic. Very skewed priorities.

[RedheadedPharoh]

It's intentional social engineering. Us Normals call it "grooming" since that's where their social engineering leads.

[Kazinski]

I thought we already disposed of that misapprehension, the AP saw the Saladoran memorandum, and they are only getting paid for TdA members, not their own citizens.

Surely you can come up with something better than talking points that have already been debunked.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-pay-el-salvador-jail-300-alleged-gang-members-ap-reports-2025-03-15/

[jb]

Is there a link to the actual memo somewhere? The language quoted in the article is completely ambiguous as to the identity of "these individuals" that the US is paying to detain.

Meanwhile, Trump has given away the game on this one, since he acknowledged he could get Abrego Garcia back if he just called and asked, but that the administration doesn't want to:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-claims-kilmar-abrego-garcia-returned-us-administration-said-othe-rcna203734

[Kazinski]

EL SALVADOR, March 15 (Reuters) - The United States is set to pay El Salvador $6 million to imprison 300 alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang that it deports to the Central American country, for one year, the Associated Press reported on Saturday, citing an internal memo.

If your theory is that the AP is covering for the Trump administration, then I have to give you credit for originality.

We already knew Trump could probably get him back if he wanted to.

But as I have said before, El Salvador probably doesn't like reading headlines about wife beating gang members from El Salvador terrorizing Americans, and wants to make it clear they are doing everything they can to stop it, so they have reasons of their own to want to send him back.

[jb]

That says that the US is paying for the Venezuelans to be imprisoned. It doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether we're also paying for Abrego Garcia to be imprisoned, which is why I thought it would be interesting to see the actual memo to see how it's scoped.

[Krayt]

Working around due process to incarcerate people using a private prison is not allowed. Why would paying another country be allowed?

That we facetiously "ask" for mistakes to be returned, and they, at our quietly mouthed directions, inform the world, "No.", is a completely separate issue.

[David Nieporent]

We did not in fact dispose of that. The AP quoted one sentence from a memo written by the Salvadoran foreign ministry. You are treating this as if it is a contractual term, rather than just a discussion of arrangements. But even if it were an actual contractual provision, it fails to establish what you want. The sentence is, "The Republic of El Salvador confirms it will house these individuals for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on their long term disposition." The statement "El Salvador will do X" does not mean "El Salvador will only do X."

It was reported elsewhere — indeed, we discussed it here at the VC a week or two ago — that the arrangement is very different than what you're portraying it. Rather than being $X for Y prisoners, it was a lump sum payment to El Salvador — of the sort Trump has tried to kill with almost every country in the world — for them to use for law enforcement purposes (which would include imprisoning people we want them to imprison). Quoting from a CNN story:

A formal notice of the $4.76 million grant to El Salvador, dated March 22, notes the purpose of the grant “to provide funds to be used by Salvadoran law enforcement and corrections agencies for its law enforcement needs, which include costs of detaining the 238 TdA members recently deported to El Salvador,” according to the internal document seen by CNN.

[tylertusta]

We've been through this and similar hypotheticals in the past few weeks.

In summary, it's different because it's Trump. People will make up whatever excuse to get what they want because it's Trump. People want judges to assert new, unlimited powers over our government because it's Trump.

See above for Mr. Guilty's fevered wishcasting that the plaintiffs can now can depose Trump himself.

When people describe TDS, it's this.

[Riva]

To quote the great Victor Davis Hanson:

All that frenzy is not a sign that the Trump counterrevolution is failing. It is good evidence that it is advancing forward, and its ethically bankrupt opposition has no idea how, or whether even, to stop it.

[not guilty]

"What exactly can a court order in this situation?"

Your hypothetical suppositions don't mean jack shit. Here, a unanimous Supreme Court has ruled that Judge Xinis's "order properly requires the Government to 'facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

[Kazinski]

And the Supreme Court also said
"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."

Rewriting the dictionary to construe 'facilitate' to mean 'effectuate' also exceeds the District Courts authority.

[David Nieporent]

Rewriting the Supreme Court's decision so that instead of saying "may exceed" it says "exceeds" also exceeds your authority.

[Commenter_XY]

St Abrego ain't coming back, NG. POTUS Trump won't be deposed, either.

No, the serial wife beating, human trafficking, illegal alien gangbanger is home in El Salvador. He will never return to the US to victimize Americans again.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's acknowledgement to Terry Moran that he could get Abrego Garcia back could turn out to be huge. The lawsuit names six defendants -- Nikita Baker, Pamela Bondi, Kenneth Genalo, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem and Marco Rubio -- three of whom are Trump Cabinet members.

Judge Xinis has the ability to order the defendants jailed for civil contempt until Abrego Garcia is returned or until the Trump administration has exhausted all reasonable efforts to facilitate his return. Do you suppose, XY, that Trump will still refuse to act if his cabinet officers are taken into custody? Even I don't think that Trump is that heartless.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I am sure you'd love to see Pam Bondi and others lead out of a courtroom in leg irons and chains, and forced to dress in sackcloth, and throwing ashes on their heads for life.

That isn't happening either.

A federal district court judge does not dictate foreign policy to the Executive branch. Not now, not ever.

St. Abrego, the POS MS-13 gangbanger, will remain in El Salvador in misery, for the rest of his useless life.

[Michael Ejercito]

A judge would have no authority to order the Administration to secure the release of Americans held hostage by Hamas.

[David Nieporent]

You mean, because of the imaginary provision of the constitution that says that the executive decides foreign policy?

[Michael Ejercito]

It is not imaginary.

Could a judge have ordered the Department of Defense to invade Gaza?

Could a judge have jailed then-Secretary of Defense LLoyd Austin if he refused to invade Gaza despite the absence of a superior presidential order, merely because a court had ordered him to launch an invasion of Gaza?

[David Nieporent]

Could a judge have ordered the Department of Defense to invade Gaza?

The constitution actually does say that the president is commander in chief, so probably not.

[Riva]

Let's rephrase that obvious misstatement and see what your response is: "Could a judge have ordered the President to order the deployment of US military forces to Gaza, assuming, for the sake of this question, that such power were within the constitutional authority of the President?"

[not guilty]

Riva, who would have Article III standing to request a United States District Judge to order that?

[Riva]

I put the question forward, if you want to answer it for crazy Dave, provide an answer, until then I'm disinclined to entertain your question.

[not guilty]

IOW, you haven't the foggiest idea.

I did say earlier that -- if a court were to reach the question -- the answer is probably no, based on the Supreme Court in Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1316 (1973), having granted an application to vacate the Court of Appeals' order staying the District Court's permanent injunction prohibiting respondent Defense Department officials from "participating in any way in military activities in or over Cambodia or releasing any bombs which may fall in Cambodia".

But my point is that no federal court's action arises in a vacuum -- someone properly situated needs to raise the question. In the hypothetical case of "Could a judge have ordered the President to order the deployment of US military forces to Gaza", who would have Article III standing to raise the question? As is customary for you, when I posed that inquiry you ran away like Usain Bolt.

If you don't know something, there should be no shame in saying that you don't know.

[Riva]

My point was to expose the silly conception of judicial authority some seem to express here, at least whenever this power is used against the Trump administration. And the answer is quite simple. The judge absolutely, unequivocally, has no such authority. Period. Paragraph. End of story. Case closed. It doesn't matter who petitions him for such an illegal order. Whether we define the question as a matter of standing or something intrinsically outside the power of the federal judicial power. Such an order would be illegal and rightfully ignored by the president.

[not guilty]

"Could a judge have ordered the Department of Defense to invade Gaza?"

Unless someone with Article III standing to do so requested a court to do that, the question is academic.

But FWIW, the Supreme Court in Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1316 (1973), having granted an application to vacate the Court of Appeals' order staying the District Court's permanent injunction prohibiting respondent Defense Department officials from "participating in any way in military activities in or over Cambodia or releasing any bombs which may fall in Cambodia" suggests the answer is no.

[not guilty]

XY, a unanimous Supreme Court has ruled that Judge Xinis's "order properly requires the Government to 'facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Your blather hasn't spooked those words off the page, nor the pixels off the monitor.

[Commenter_XY]

Is St Abrego back, NG? He is not, and never will be.

The only one blathering here is you. The POS, human trafficking, serial wife beating illegal gangbanger sits in a prison in El Salvador.

But...keep hope alive, NG.

[Brett Bellmore]

How can it be "huge" to acknowledge the obvious?

[Sarcastr0]

Dunno if it's huge, but quite a few posters on here have convinced themselves of the opposite. They're in this thread right now, in fact!

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, the issue is that at this point getting Garcia back probably requires actions that are outside the courts' jurisdiction, so they can tell Trump all day long to bring him back, but they can't order him to undertake the actions that would accomplish it.

Each branch has a core area that the other branches can't intrude into, and this is now in the President's core area. The judiciary can no more order Trump to ask for Garcia back than Trump can order a judge to convict somebody.

I don't like what happened here, it was at least clumsy, and arguably worse than clumsy, and I don't like the way Trump responded to a mistake being made by becoming stubborn, instead of correcting it. But that doesn't change the legal reasoning.

[Poxigah145]

I don't think you're giving him enough credit. I think the point here was to make the Democrats look foolish, dying on the hill of a gangbanger who doesn't belong here in the first place. And by ignoring the courts, he is showing them the limits of their power.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do agree that there's a large component of "Bait the foes into defending the indefensible" in a lot of Trump's actions lately.

The problem is that, when you ignore the courts, they get really pissy and vengeful, and you start losing cases that would have been automatic wins otherwise. So you need to limit ignoring the courts to really important matters, not "we forgot to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s" mixups like this, where you could have accomplished the goal without pissing the courts off by just following correct procedure.

In theory, unrelated cases shouldn't have this result, but back in the real world the only thing the judiciary really strongly cares about is that people ask how high when told to jump, regardless of whether the judge was entitled to tell them to jump. Which is why, for instance, they'll insist that contempt of court is a crime even when you're in contempt of illegal demands by a judge.

Think about it: The judiciary's official stance on unconstitutional laws is that they are and were void from the start, so that violation of them is inconsequential. But their official stance on unconstitutional judicial orders is, "Obey, peasant!".

[Poxigah145]

I hear you, but where I disagree is that I think the judiciary is going to be pissy and vengeful with regard to anything important because they're angry that someone is trying to challenge the status quo of the elite of the past 50 years, which is great for the elite, but bad for everyone else.

Other Republicans paid lip service to this, but ultimately did nothing when push came to shove.

If Trump's point is to get his base (the 35-40% that support his goals and tactics) riled up, it's working. He obviously doesn't care about the 40-45% that hate him no matter what he does, and with respect to the independents? Well, they're wishy washy. They could change their minds 4 times in the next year and a half.

[jb]

We brought up polling in the open thread earlier in the week, but Trump is overplaying his hand here. You call wanting Abrego Garcia back is "defending the indefensible", but it turns out it's the preference of a strong majority of Americans:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-us-bring-back-abrego-garcia-views-mixed/story?id=121123625

If Trump just concentrated on deporting people uncontroversially and stopped being an asshole, he'd end up with a lot more support than engaging in these sorts of shenanigans that end up alienating essentially everyone who is not hard core MAGA.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and my position on the polling is that Trump can afford to take a polling hit this far from the midterms, as long as he recoups it well enough in advance of them.

[Poxigah145]

I suspect a large portion of the 30% who said they didn't know enough would be on the side of leaving him there.

I'm sure if you ask "Do you think the U.S. should bring back a law abiding, Maryland father who was deported by mistake?" you'd get different answers than "Do you think the U.S. should move heaven and earth to bring back a gang-banging illegal immigrant who was deported by mistake?"

[jb]

Brett--I'm pointing to the polling to dispute the notion that Democrats are "defending the indefensible" here. This is an issue where the Democrats are clearly on the popular side of the issue, and Trump continues to do his agenda harm both in the courts and in the court of popular opinion.

I totally agree that polling right now is not significant in terms of electoral outcomes. They can and will change between now and the midterms, but right now Trump is tanking his advantage on immigration and the economy, which are his two strongest issues.

[Brett Bellmore]

" This is an issue where the Democrats are clearly on the popular side of the issue,"

That depends on how you frame it, and what information is public.

That bit of cheese looks pretty safe and tasty, until you find out it was on the trigger of a mousetrap.

So, if you WERE going to bait Democrats into defending the indefensible on this subject, what would you do? You'd take some guy you had indisputable evidence was a really bad dude, and who clearly was deportable, and you'd mess up their deportation a bit to draw attention to him, while keeping said evidence buried.

And then you'd wait until Democrats were committed to his defense, and THEN release all the incriminating evidence.

This actually seems to me to be the way things have been proceeding.

Now, granted, Democrats have enough media dominance to keep some of the public forever in the dark about that evidence, and a much larger fraction in the dark for some extended period of time. But, can they keep enough people in the dark long enough?

In the past they generally could. Can they still? I think Trump is betting not.

I might add that the the portion of the public Democrats can keep in the dark forever were already a lost cause for Trump, and so don't really count in his calculations.

[tylertusta]

But their official stance on unconstitutional judicial orders is, "Obey, peasant!".

Trump foes don't like to talk about it, but there are some unconstitutional orders from judges that don't have to be followed and can't be punished with contempt when they are not.

We might even see it in Boasberg's contempt case over the TdA removals. Boasberg might be like Sideshow Bob, stepping on rake after rake.

[not guilty]

"Trump foes don't like to talk about it, but there are some unconstitutional orders from judges that don't have to be followed and can't be punished with contempt when they are not."

tylertusta, do you have any actual, uh authority for that proposition? Are you familiar with the collateral bar rule?

At its most basic, collateral bar has long held that a person who disobeys a court order cannot challenge the merits of that order as a defense to criminal contempt charges. Thus, in Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-190 (1922), the Supreme Court opined:

An injunction duly issuing out of a court of general jurisdiction with equity powers, upon pleadings properly invoking its action, and served upon persons. made parties therein and within the jurisdiction, must be obeyed by them, however erroneous the action of the court may be, even if the error be in the assumption of the validity of a seeming but void law going to the merits of the case. It is for the court of first instance to determine the question of the validity of the law, and until its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either by itself or by a higher court, its orders based on its decision are to be respected, and disobedience of them is contempt of its lawful authority, to be punished. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 221 U.S. 450; Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U.S. 542, 212 U.S. 548. See also United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 203 U.S. 573.

Judge Boasberg is on solid ground here in his order of April 16, 2025:

One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order. See id. at 314, 320. That foundational “rule of law” answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. See id. at 320. The rule “reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how “exalted his station” or “righteous his motives.” Id. at 320–21.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.81.0_5.pdf

IOW, Judge Boasberg anticipated the kind of claptrap you and your MAGA kindred are spewing.

[bernard11]

there's a large component of "Bait the foes into defending the indefensible" in a lot of Trump's actions lately.

Master strategist, huh, Brett.

In this instance it looks to me like it's the Trumpists who are defending the indefensible.

[Bob from Ohio]

USA TODAY Video
@usatodayvideo
"He slapped me three times." Audio depicts Jennifer Vasquez Sura, wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, pleading with a judge for temporary protection from her husband in 2020."

[David Nieporent]

Wait 'til you hear what Ivana Trump testified under oath that Donald did to her!

[Commenter_XY]

Ivana is dead, David. And POTUS Trump is not a POS, human trafficking, illegal alien gangbanger.

[David Nieporent]

Ivana is dead, David.

Does rape cease to be rape once the victim dies?

And POTUS Trump is not a POS, human trafficking, illegal alien gangbanger.

Well, he's not an illegal alien.

[not guilty]

"How can it be 'huge' to acknowledge the obvious?"

Because it eviscerates the ability of Trump's underlings to argue in any civil contempt proceeding that compliance with Judge Xinis's order is impossible.

[Brett Bellmore]

You've got two groups of people:

Group 1 are the ones the Judge CAN put under contempt in this, but who genuinely lack the power to comply with his order, because they don't have the foreign policy power, their boss does. And he isn't subject to their orders.

"Group 2" is Trump, who genuinely has the power to comply, but who the judge can't put under contempt in this.

I don't really see how a contempt order against Trump's underlings is sustainable on appeal under these circumstances. Really, all they need as a defense is to say, "We asked him to bring Garcia back, and he refused."

[Kazinski]

Compliance with what order?

Be specific.

Bondi has said publicly that she is ready to facilitate Garcia's return should Bukele decide to release him.

Trump stating he will not effectuate Garcia's return does not violate any existing order, only the part of the original order where SCOTUS granted the stay.

Its pretty amusing the kabuki you are playing pretending the order says something the Supreme Court has said it cannot.

[Sarcastr0]

So does facilitating someone's return to the US have any functional meaning for you, or nah?

[Kazinski]

Just the plain English meaning:

verb
make (an action or process) easy or easier.
"schools were located on the same campus to facilitate the sharing of resources"

Notice how passive the usage is in the example.

Or perhaps:
"The ambassador keeps his cellphone with him at all times to facilitate the return of Albrego Garcia if the Foreign Ministry calls".

That is functional.

[Sarcastr0]

The modern operative definition is "to make something possible or easier."

You know the court's intent. You are arguing semantics to render the order a nullity.

Among other court orders seeking due process from the Admin which you seek to nullify.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You know the court's intent."

Yes. The court's intent is to get the administration to do something that it doesn't have the power to order it to do.

Bondi has already pointed out one way to facilitate his return, they could send a plane to pick him up.

But a plane doesn't do any good unless Bukele releases the guy. And as you guys like to point out, Bukele won't release him unless Trump wants him released.

And the court can't order Trump to want him released.

[Kazinski]

If that's the district court's intent, then why doesn't she just say so in plain English?

Because she doesn't have the authority to do so, and she knows it, so we have to play this game she is losing.

[Sarcastr0]

She did use plain English.

[not guilty]

No, Kazinski, the Supreme Court did not say that the District Court cannot order the defendants to effectuate Abrego Garcia's return. The Court said: "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." Within hours of that ruling, Judge Xinis sua sponte amended her April 4 order to eliminate the requirement that the defendants effectuate the plaintiff's return. The April 4 order, as amended on April 10, remains in effect.

[Kazinski]

However you want to phrase it, there is no currently operative order to effectuate Garcia's Return.

So that means neither Trump or his administration are under any legal compulsion whatsoever to effectuate Garcia's return.

You and Xinis just want to pretend he is.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, there is a fully operative "order [which] properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." The President of the United States has positively affirmed his ability to carry out that order.

Cavilling about "effectuating" the return is a red herring. As Governor Al Smith said, no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

[Kazinski]

Trump acknowledged that he could effectuate Garcia's return to the US, and refuses to do so?

Well then why doesn't the judge directly order Trump to effectuate his return?

We already knew he could, and the judge knew it, and the judge is just as powerless to do anything about it as she always has been. Including ordering Trump deposed, unless she wants to take it back up to the Supreme Court.

I don't know why she would Ned to anyway. just have Garcia's lawyers feed the questions they want answered to the White House Press pool, I'm sure they'll cooperate. And Trump will answer the questions too.

[Drewski]

"Well then why doesn't the judge directly order Trump to effectuate his return?"

Because Trump isn't a party to the case, duh.

[Kazinski]

Why doesn't the Judge order Rubio or Bondi or Noem to effectuate Garcia's return then?

Same thing, the Supreme Court used the terms "the Goverment", and "the Executive" when they told Xinis not to go there.

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

>Because Trump isn't a party to the case, duh.

Since Trump isn't a party to the case, how can those people be held responsible for Trump's words?

[Drewski]

They probably can't absent a showing that they were working in concert, in which case that finding would be why.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how that is even enough to get you there. They work for Trump, not the other way around, it's not a symmetrical relationship. He might be responsible for what they do under his orders, but they aren't responsible for what he does unless it can be shown they asked him to do it.

So, again, the only defense they need is to say, "We asked him to bring back Garcia and he said "no"." Asking is all THEY had the power to accomplish, in concert or not.

[Riva]

President Trump could order many things within his exclusive constitutional authority. He could order nuclear missile strikes on the moon. What do all these things within the exclusive power of the president have in common? They are beyond the authority of an overreaching judiciary.

So in a nutshell, why doesn’t President Trump order the return of the illegal alien terrorist gangbanger? Because there is one president and he doesn’t share his power with a federal judge.

[Riva]

[Speaking for normal people]

"heartless" what a completely inapplicable term !! Your whole point is he thinks he did things rationally then you imply it was all bad will. Don't become a lawyer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Judge Xinis has the ability to order the defendants jailed for civil contempt until Abrego Garcia is returned or until the Trump administration has exhausted all reasonable efforts to facilitate his return. Do you suppose, XY, that Trump will still refuse to act if his cabinet officers are taken into custody? Even I don't think that Trump is that heartless."

Jailed by whom and in what facility?

Ain't gonna happen.

For starters, every one of Judge Xinis' court offices would call in sick that day. And then we'd have a *real* insurrection and Xinis' lifeless body would be found floating down the Potomic a few days later.

And I suspect that Xinis realizes this...

[not guilty]

Judge Xinis can designate persons other than U. S. Marshals to execute process, per Fed.R.Civ.P. 4.1. I surmise that the holding facility would be the Prince George's County jail, although the Court would have discretion there.

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

If Trump isn't a party to the lawsuit, can you tell me how those people are responsible for what Trump said?

[tylertusta]

Wow. So, Judge Xinis should take hostages now?

Is there no limit to the perfidy you're capable of dreaming up?

[Life of Brian]

They have to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship to save it from turning into an autocratic dictatorship, ya see.

[Josh R]

Judge Xinis has the ability to order the defendants jailed for civil contempt until Abrego Garcia is returned or until the Trump administration has exhausted all reasonable efforts to facilitate his return. Do you suppose, XY, that Trump will still refuse to act if his cabinet officers are taken into custody?

Moving this over from another thread, there is not going to be a contempt order during discovery so long as the defendants cooperate with the discovery. And if after discovery, the judge determines that Trump has not exhausted all reasonable efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, how is that not a final judgment which would permit immediate appeal?

[not guilty]

"And if after discovery, the judge determines that Trump has not exhausted all reasonable efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, how is that not a final judgment which would permit immediate appeal?"

Josh R, the Supreme Court still has concluded that a party to litigation may not immediately appeal a civil contempt order. See Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U.S. 105, 107 (1936) ("The rule is settled in this Court that except in connection with an appeal from a final judgment or decree, a party to a suit may not review upon appeal an order fining or imprisoning him for the commission of a civil contempt."); United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338, 344 (4th Cir. 2010).

Generally, a final decision "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945); Myers, 593 F.3d at 344. There will be no final judgment in this habeas corpus case unless and until Abrego Garcia is returned to the United States or, in the alternative, the District Court decides he is entitled to no further relief and dismisses the case.

Nothing has changed since the last comment thread. Try reading some actual law before pontificating about what orders are final and appealable.

[Josh R]

If the judge holds that Trump has not exhausted all reasonable efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, that ends the litigation on the merits.

[not guilty]

"If the judge holds that Trump has not exhausted all reasonable efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, that ends the litigation on the merits."

Josh R, that is (im)pure, unadulterated horseshit. Where and when did you get your legal training, if any?

[Josh R]

IANAL, but that is not grounds for dismissing my comment without a substantive reply.

If the judge holds that Trump has not exhausted all reasonable efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia' return, what is left to litigate?

[not guilty]

Your comment above was sheer nonsense on its face. If the judge holds that Trump has not exhausted all reasonable efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia' return, that ruling is by its very nature interlocutory. What further efforts need to be made would remain to be litigated, as well as what consequences should attach to the defendants' failure to comply with the order.

What procedural safeguards Abrego Garcia is entitled to upon his return "to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador" per the SCOTUS ruling of April 10 would remain to be litigated.

The United States alleges that Abrego Garcia has been found to be a member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that his return to the United States would pose a threat to the public. Abrego Garcia responds that he is not a member of MS–13, and that he has lived safely in the United States with his family for a decade and has never been charged with a crime. If and to the extent that these factual disputes are germane, they would remain to be litigated.

Contrary to what too many commenters here seem to believe, neither ipse dixit nor Otto Yourazz is a reliable legal authority.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Judge Xinis has the ability to order the defendants jailed"

Keep hope alive!

[not guilty]

It's evident that you are no litigator, Bob.

The parties to a lawsuit don't have arms long enough to box with the judge.

[Life of Brian]

This is just your latest and greatest episode of pipe-dream wishcasting. Like so many that have come before, I'm comfortable it will not indeed come to fruition.

[not guilty]

I recall a time honored joke from law school.

What is the biggest difference between God and a federal district judge?

God doesn't think he is a federal district judge.

[Poxigah145]

It's too bad we can't strip his wife of citizenship and send her to join him.

[Sarcastr0]

Too bad?

Tell us more about how you would like to sanitize America's citizenry.

[Bob from Ohio]

Is there a law against knowingly aiding and abetting an illegal alien?

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, yeah, but it can't result in a citizen being stripped of citizenship.

[Poxigah145]

You can be stripped of citizenship for treason. You can at least make a colorable argument that aiding and abetting an illegal alien participating in an invasion is committing treason.

[not guilty]

No, Poxigah145, someone cannot be stripped of citizenship for treason. The potential penalties are prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 2381. Upon conviction, the offender "shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

[David Nieporent]

But first you'd have to find an invasion.

[bernard11]

So Trump defying the courts is just dandy? is that what you think?

[TwelveInchPianist]

How has Trump defied the courts?

[Speaking for normal people]

Interesting ??
NO heart in you.

[Moderation4ever]

Just a reminder that it has been 48 days since the Trump Administration mistakenly sent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to prison in El Salvator. A mistake the administration admits but has not yet corrected.

[Riva]

MS-13 is a designated terrorist organization. This particular MS-13 illegal alien gangbanger, and a domestic abuser and human trafficker on the side, is back in his homeland of El Salvador. It’s their decision how you handle their citizen. They are disinclined to export the terrorist gangbanger to the US. Are they a colony the US can order around? Should a federal judge take it upon himself to order sanctions or military action to compel compliance?

[Speaking for normal people]

Just a reminder that every passing day shows he should have been sent sooner. Wife beater, gang member, human trafficker,even a worry to his own kids biological parent.

[David Nieporent]

It's amazing that this guy is such a prolific criminal and yet in 15 years in the U.S. all he's gotten is a few traffic tickets.

[Life of Brian]

A mistake the administration admits but has not yet corrected.

At moments like this it may be worth keeping in mind how the administration has said in so many words they would "correct" it:

1. Return him to US custody.
2. Detain him in the US during the administrative proceeding to revoke the withholding grant on the grounds that the reasons for the grant, to the extent they were ever valid, certainly aren't now.
3. Send him right back to El Salvador.

IOW, the error was harmless because we would have reached the same outcome regardless.

Now, I'm sure that the media would love the extension of time to swallow the news cycle with Big Orange Meanie puff pieces, but I suspect many would see it as a performative waste of time and that we should direct our limited resources to far more significant problems in this country than fleetingly keeping libs' hope alive that we'll soon be back to our proper quota of wife-beating illegal immigrant gangsters.

[tylertusta]

I'm told that in other situations, the government has held INA proceedings over a conference call. Maybe they'll even fly an immigration judge down to El Salvador and they can handle everything in a 15 minute meeting.

[Sarcastr0]

Saying 'we'd do a bunch of due process but the outcome is assured' is not really showing harmless error.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, when the outcome is assured because the deciding issue (That Garcia was an illegal alien.) is undisputed, it's perfectly natural that due process is consistent with an assured outcome.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's not how harmless error works.

If the administration wants to do such a thing, it should just do it.

This saying it doesn't need to bother because it totally would and could and is about to but won't? That's not harmless error,that's pretext.

[Life of Brian]

Ah well. Hopefully after swinging by the US embassy for the performative rites you demand, the immigration judge can at least grab some local cuisine so it won't be an entirely wasted trip.

Admittedly, Sarc4GangBangers is kinda catchy. Maybe switch to that for a few weeks, sorta like everyone was doing for a while putting the Ukrainian flag in the background of their profile pics?

[Sarcastr0]

If it's so performative, then it wouldn't matter so much to you, Brett, and the Admin that you not bother doing it.

[Life of Brian]

Just a waste of time and resources, as I clearly said in my first post. Fortunately it's all pretty academic anyway since Bukele has no particular reason to turn his own country's law and order on its ear out of concern for American liberals' feelz.

[Riva]

No, not interesting, insane, a district court judge has no business, and no constitutional authority, to micromanage the national security and foreign policy of the US. It seems the federal judiciary can’t control themselves anymore. They’re bound and determined to provoke a constitutional crisis.

[tylertusta]

... gives the Plaintiffs a good faith basis to seek leave to depose the President

Hope springs eternal, eh?

[rloquitur]

No way that Trump gets deposed, and for what? He doesn't have to ask that this POS get returned to the USA. A court could order him to do it, but he's going to ignore it. And what is she gonna do about it.

The courts need to be taken down a peg. Now you have this idjit judge in Florida ordering the AG to instruct cops. He's rightly telling her to pound sand.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Apparently Marco Rubio believes Cuban illegals should get special treatment because they are pussies that allowed a communist loser to take over their island! Apparently in his dumbass memoir he said that he was at the house of the sex traffickers that kidnapped Elian Gonzalez and supported them over the father!?! Because limp dicks that flee their country instead of fighting for it make all of the people on the island limp dicks that deserve pity and special treatment by America!?! And when an irresponsible mother sets off on a rickety raft with the goal of entering America illegally Americans should dispense with law and order and go with “finders keeper, losers weepers!” because “exiles”. Rubio has a law degree from Cocaine U so he knows all about the “law”.

[Speaking for normal people]

Sam, in Rhetoric class they use this kind of poor pointless egotistical writing to illustrate the main dumb things to avoid when trying to make a point
1) You never say a word about Rubio only about what you are sure he was thinking, his motivations that are invisible to you, and his aims , which you could know nothing about.

2) and that 'mother' --- pure fictional creation, makes you look unhinged

3) And you have the terrible habit of starting poisonous calumnies with "apparentlly' If it were apparent to anyone but you , you wouldn't have to post it --- apparently

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Rubio believes Cubans as “exiles” deserve special treatment over other immigrants…he made the point in his memoir. And Elian Gonzalez’ mother was a real person and really engaged is extremely reckless behavior with her child…and the exile Cubans believed they could do things even when American courts ruled for the father.

[Speaking for normal people]

i don't think memoris count, John Adams wrote that he thought the President should be addressed but what he did was different
John Adams, the second U.S. president, did propose titles like "His Highness" and "His Elective Majesty," he never actually used "Your Majesty" to address himself or was addressed as such.
I remember the Elian case...you don't mention what HE said
===> "My mother was an excellent mother," Elian Gonzalez said. "She lost her life trying to save me. And looking for a better place to live....Elian Gonzalez said during the interview that his life is simple, he is married and has a young daughter. Her name is Eliz in honor of his mother Elizabeth, who died at sea during the ill-fated attempt to escape from Cuba

ARe you really against the courts ruling for the father ??? I disliked it too but I don't want any court ruling against me in regard to my child. Sorry, it's a messy world

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Republicans didn’t support the Federal court decision. It was crazy that we allowed an immigrant community to believe they were above our laws.

[Riva]

Another fine example of the incisive political acumen driving the Democrat party.

[Kazinski]

REE the grid operator in Spain warned in February the high percentage of renewable use put the stability of the grid at risk.

"These blackouts "could become severe, even leading to an imbalance between production and demand, which would significantly affect the electricity supply", it added."

You might ask if they knew that high a percentage of renewables would put the grid at risk, why they didn't do something about it. Well Net Zero is the law, and Spain is trying to achieve it as fast as possible. And the only thing that can be done is use less renewables.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/spain-grid-operator-report-warned-of-blackout-risk-from-renewables/articleshow/120763045.cms

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Texas had hundreds of thousands without power for days because tree branches fell on power lines…oops. Battery backup will solve all of these issues and one total loss of everything in a fridge makes the $1000 fridge battery worth it. And in 5 years that battery will cost less than $500.

[Mr. Bumble]

"And in 5 years that battery will cost less than $500."
Meanwhile.....

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Ok, lose a fridge full of groceries because a tree branch fell on a power line.

[Mr. Bumble]

Better to have a gas powered back-up generator or will those be banned?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I agree, but just know too many homes had whole home natural gas generators in SW Louisiana and the pipelines lost pressure and the generators failed…right next to the most important pipeline in America. So I’m getting the multi fuel generator for 1 window AC and fridge…no reason to have a whole home generator when all you need is one room to be cool to sleep until the power comes back on. But what happens if you are away and the power goes out?? You lose everything in the fridge and freezer without battery backup!

[Speaking for normal people]

So ??? What percent of the total is SW Lousiana. IN logic , if the greater percent doesn't argue against you, the lesser percent can't be cited in your favor.

I know a man who gagged to death on vitamins ERGO ????

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

From my readings of Sam's comments, he's too stupid to understand your well-crafted arguments.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Nobody should ever buy batteries ever!! They are stoopid!! Whaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

You people somehow get dumber every year.

[Kazinski]

Well have to admit I wss curious about your battery reply so unmuted SBF long enough to satisfy my curiosity.

Currently on Amazon you can buy a 2 kWh battery for 1000$, that will run a typical refrigerator half a day. That's a lot of money for not very long.

"Fridges use 300 to 800 W (0.3 to 0.8 kW) of power at any one time and 4 kWh over the course of a day"

You can of course just keep your refrigerator cold that long just by keeping the doors shut.

My cabin is off the grid and I have a .5kwh lithium battery, and 2 golf cart batteries for another 3kwh, but my refrigerator is propane, because batteries aren't practical for running refrigerators.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're built with a tradeoff between insulation and power consumption which isn't intended for battery power. If you wanted to run a refrigerator off batteries you'd pile on a lot more insulation, and make it top loading.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I’m talking about battery backup, not running off of batteries. Since 2020 there has been a lot of crazy weather in Texas with URI being the craziest but power went out much longer because of trees and tree branches knocking down power lines both in winter and summer. Now we get hurricane force winds coming from the Great Plains in June that uproots hundred year old trees…wtf??

[Dr. Ed 2]

Servell is long out of business -- who sells propane-only refrigerators today?

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=full+size+propane+refrigerator&language=en_US&adgrpid=1241349616535167&hvadid=77584480972900&hvbmt=bp&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=98305&hvnetw=s&hvqmt=p&hvtargid=kwd-77584596165169%3Aloc-190&hydadcr=20690_13426569&mcid=b0ea67761b503da7a1e8a66c4f932f3c&tag=reasonmagazinea-20&ref=pd_sl_5ipq0yi0kq_p

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are there any propane ONLY ones? No 12 volt, no electric at all.

What did in Servell was carbon monoxide:
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/1998/cpsc-warns-that-old-servel-gas-refrigerators-still-in-use-can-be-deadly

[Mr. Bumble]

Do your own research. That link was the first hit on Duck Duck Go with many that followed.

[Kazinski]

Mine uses propane only. A 5 gallon tank lasts about 3 weeks.

It uses a non-chemical reaction between ammonia and hydrogen where the hydrogen molecules in the liquid ammonia causes the ammonia to expand into a gas and absorb all the heat from the refrigerator. Then the ammonia vapor and hydrogen separate and the ammonia condenses and returns to the reservoir and the hydrogen rises back up to its reservoir.

A small flame causes is what heats the ammonia causing it to expand and rise up a tube to interact with the hydrogen in the first place.

It doesn't have any moving parts, or consume either of the reactants in the process, since its an electrical repulsion between the molecules that causes the reaction not chemical bonds.

[Mr. Bumble]

When you say 5 gallons, I assume you're talking about a standard 20lb BBQ tank.
Any idea how cost stacks up against a standard electric fridge?

[Kazinski]

Its about the same.

5 gals of propane = 134kwh

Avg price per kwh is .15 so 20.12

I get propane for 2.99 gal * 5 = 15.00

But I guess I also have to take into account efficiency so 3 weeks of electricity for a refrigerator would be 10-12$.

On the other hand the only electricity I have is from my solar or generator, and my solar isn't enough.

I run my whole house on propane anyway:
generator for well and tools, hot water, stove, refrigerator, and I am happy with it.

[Speaking for normal people]

Okay, post it in 5 years Right now N/A

[Bwaaah]

In theory, he's a forward thinking person. In reality, he's an idiot lost in theory. (Actually, he's a troll who occasionally mistakes himself for somebody with a point.)

[Riva]

That’s completely wrong. Texas doesn’t have battery backup to sustain baseline power load when unreliable, intermittent renewable sources fail, if in fact it relied primarily on renewables, which it doesn’t. And no nation on this planet does because the cost would be astronomical even if reliable technology, which it doesn’t.

[jb]

"And no nation on this planet does because the cost would be astronomical even if reliable technology, which it doesn’t."

I think Kazinski posted earlier in the week that for at least one day before the failure, Spain was running on 100% renewables.

The cost gap between renewables and fossil fuels has closed significantly (and in many cases favors renewables at this point). There's definitely still reliability concerns, but many countries could easily get by on a mix of renewables and nuclear with no fossil fules in the mix.

[Brett Bellmore]

It only favors the renewables if you refuse to attribute to the renewables the cost of idling the conventional sources that the renewables are using as backup to avoid blackouts.

So, you've got a coal plant, say, and though in a renewables free system you'd be running it 100% of the time, it gets idled 30% of the time in the system with renewables. But the only reason you don't get blackouts in the system is that it's there ready to turn back on when the wind fails to blow.

Proper accounting would attribute 30% of the capital cost of the coal plant to the renewables, instead.

You have to cost out the renewables as a complete system, including whatever is necessary to make them look like they're actually reliable, IOW.

Once you do that, they stop looking so good.

[jb]

I agree that sort of analysis would be proper and give you a sense of total cost of ownership.

The good news is that fossil fuels have the lowest fixed costs (and relatively higher variable costs to generate power) whereas renewables have high fixed costs and low variable costs. So I'm not sure it would wildly change the overall economics, but it would be interesting to see someone do the full analysis for a successful renewable-heavy system.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But without someone paying the fixed costs of the fossil plants, they won't exist and hence won't be there to be dispatchable.

[jb]

Dude, I was agreeing with Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, remember that the cost of the fossil plant backing up the 'renewables' counts twice when you're doing this analysis: It falsely lowers the apparent cost of the renewables, and falsely inflates the apparent cost of the fossil fuel plants.

When it switches sides on the ledger the effect is thus doubled, what you're adding to the cost of renewables you're taking OFF the cost of the fossil fuels.

But, honestly, I hate coal as much as anyone. Nuclear is the way to go.

[jb]

I don't think it's true that it falsely increases the price of the fossil fuels, because generally when doing this sort of analysis you're looking at theoretical per kwH cost that amortizes the full cost of the capital investment over the expected lifetime of the facility. I haven't seen anyone saying "oh, but you have to assume that the fossil fuel plant can only ever be used 70% because we have to hold back capacity to fill in for renewables". If they were going to do that, it would have to be in a context where they were also attributing that holdback to the renewables.

In any case, I think we both agree that nuclear is better than fossil fuels. I also think it would be pretty silly to ignore renewables in places where they're cheap (and getting cheaper). There's a lot of sunny desert out there! A lot of it (like southeastern California) is not even that far from where people live.

[Joe_dallas]

Renewables do appear cheaper based on the lazard's and other organizations computation of LCOE, especially since they are really only comparing the cost of generation. LCOE does a very poor job of including all the costs, such as cost of stability, frequency, intermediacy, back up, storage, redundancy, etc.

Further, LCOE plays the sleigh of hand trick with its computation comparing dissilimar generation spaces. The three primary generation spaces are baseload, intermediate load and peak load. Renewables do a very good job filling the intermediate load space which is the least costly of the three generation spaces, It is likewise the least costly generation space for fossil fuel electric generation. For obvious reasons, the advocates using LCOE like to compare the renewable cost for the intermediate space against the fossil fuels that cover all three generation spaces.

It should also be noted that Spain acheived 100% renewable generation during a day during the spring. Both the spring and fall have the highest renewable capacity generation while the same time period has the lowest demand, all due to weather. Just the opposite is true during the summer and winter.

Spain's per capita electric usage is about 5.53 Mwh where as the US is about 12.44 Mwh (2023 data).

.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Proper accounting would also include decommissioning and disposal costs as well, which for solar and wind are going to equal (or exceed) the construction costs. Unlike with nuke plants, there is no fund being established to pay to remove and dispose of all of the toxic waste solar panels or to retrieve abandoned windmills from mountain tops and offshore.

Circa 2060, someone is going to have to pay quite a bit of money to do this.

[bernard11]

Proper accounting would attribute 30% of the capital cost of the coal plant to the renewables, instead.

Not sure I agree. Isn't the capital cost of the coal plant a sunk cost? Maybe you could clarify your point.

[Riva]

Perhaps typed and sent too hastily. What I meant was no nation has battery power to back up the inevitable loss of intermittent renewable power. That Spain relied excessively and irresponsibly on renewables I concede. That's why they had a blackout and other nations pursuing such insanity will suffer the same fate.

[Kazinski]

The marginal cost of renewables can be cheaper with solar, and also for wind if its subsidized.

But the cost of providing backup conventional or other generating capacity make both more expensive than fossil fuels.

It's estimated that the cost of last weeks blackout exceeded 5 billion, that should go in the renewable cost ledger.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That’s changing very quickly. The most expensive part of the grid are peaker plants and so that is what batteries are up against and not baseload natural gas.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let me copy and paste (with a couple modifications) what I said about that Maine case where the state House, by taking away a member's vote, is disenfranchising her constituents. I want to get away from Blackman's "what about Trump" foolishness and look at this situation on its own merits.

The voters of a district cannot be denied their vote, under a republican government. Taking away their representative's vote is taking away *their* vote.

True, if she'd been expelled, there would have necessarily have been a brief interval of no representation, but this would have been followed by a special election. If the vote had been to expel, the district's voters could have swiftly reinstated their representative, or chosen a new representative (unless the special election is unreasonably delayed, which I think would be a violation in itself).

According to the Maine Constitution:

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of 2/3, expel a member, but not a 2nd time for the same cause." Article Four, Part Third, Section 4.

There was no bipartisan vote to expel - maybe because no such vote was desired by Democrats, or maybe because the Republican minority wouldn't provide the necessary votes to make two-thirds.

Let's just stipulate that the Republicans, in their moral blindness, refused to recognize the representative's conduct as expellable, thus "forcing" the Democratic majority to take away a representative's vote under the guise of punishing "disorderly behavior," which requires a simple majority vote.

At minimum, a key point of having a representative in the legislature, under a republican form of government, is so the representative can cast votes. If the house lets a member keep her seat without the right to vote, there is no prompt pathway to restore to the voters of a district their right to a vote in the legislature. A tyrannical bare majority could just take away the vote of a district's representative. And of course we're stipulating that the representative is evil and is content to lose the right to vote so long as she keeps her pay and perquisites.

To sum up: If they don't want her to vote, kick her out and hope the voters don't send her back. If they don't have the votes to kick her out, or if the voters send her back in a special election, that's the way it goes. *Someone* has to be in the legislature voting in the district's behalf.

[not guilty]

As I wrote on the earlier thread, federal courts can review a state legislature's punishment of its own members if and to the extent that such punishment offends federal constitutional guaranties. See Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966).

Bond involved the refusal to seat the winner of a legislative election because of his criticism of the Government's Vietnam policy and the operation of the Selective Service laws. This was held to be a First Amendment violation. The issue had not become moot because Rep. Bond was entitled to back pay for the time he had missed while excluded.

According to Rep. Libby's SCOTUS application, Maine House Rule 401(11), provides that a member “guilty of a breach of any of the rules and orders of the House … may not be allowed to vote or speak … until the member has made satisfaction.” https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/libby-fecteau-emergency-app-scotus-maine.pdf

I haven't researched whether an elected state legislator, who continues to hold office with all salary and benefits thereof, has a liberty or property interest in speaking during legislative proceedings and/or in having her vote counted during such proceedings. Intuitively I would think so, but as I said I haven't researched the question.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As I see it, the issue isn't about some politician's "property interest" in her office or its powers. It's about the voters' right to vote. The voters of Libby's district are being denied the right to a vote in the state House.

I see this as a Guarantee Clause issue - "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." Article IV, Section 4. Of course, the Supremes say this is nonjusticiable, enforceable by Congress (and the President), not by the judiciary acting alone. But certain issues relating (in practice) to the rights of voters to the service of their representative have been put (mistakenly, I think) under the rubric of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, in the Bond and Powell cases.

PS - Robert Bork suggested that, contra the Supreme Court, the Guarantee Clause *is* justiciable (the context was gross malapportionment).

[A Japanese Student]

Powell was decided on the ground that Congress lacks power to unseat duly elected representative under the Qualifications Clause. It did not decide whether any person had a constitutional right. (Plus, Powell is likely on the boundary of what the court can rule on - with respect to Congress, Speech and Debate Clause usually bars judicial review of member's discipline. Massie v. Pelosi, No. 22-5058 (CADC 2023))

I think the more reasonable framework would be First Amendment retaliation, not Due Process Clause. See Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. ___ (2022) (holding that censure alone, without expulsion or exclusion, does not violate the First Amendment)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Libby's official "offense" is posting a picture of a high school student on Twitter -- and Libby's defense is that others have done the exact same thing.

[David Nieporent]

Powell was decided on the ground that Congress lacks power to unseat duly elected representative under the Qualifications Clause.

To refuse to seat, not to unseat.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

From a nutritional perspective, you need voting rights in your Diet.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that the Warren Court, in the Bond and Powell cases, protected the right of black constituents to elect black representatives despite the opposition of their white colleagues.

[Magister]

The voters had the right to vote for their representative, and have their representative. If that representative simply abstains from all votes and makes no speeches for whatever reason, the voters haven't been cheated of their right to representation. Legislatures can institute various rules of their own, and these are a constitutional violation only if they would violate some constitutional right of the legislator (as in not guilty's example); if the legislator refuses to follow rules and loses opportunities to represent their voters, the voters clearly made a bad choice.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"If that representative simply abstains from all votes and makes no speeches for whatever reason, the voters haven't been cheated of their right to representation."

You're wrong.

[Magister]

They chose that person and are represented in the form of whatever votes that person takes or doesn't take.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Even if you're right and it's OK for a legislator to neglect her duties, that doesn't make it OK for her colleagues to disenfranchise the voters of her district.

And of course, an individual legislator neglecting her duties, though I think it's serious misbehavior, doesn't violate the Guarantee Clause in and of itself.

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

>Let's just stipulate that the Republicans, in their moral blindness, refused to recognize the representative's conduct as expellable,

Are you for real with this? You think not apologizing for saying men are men and women are women is an expellable offense?

You people are fascist nuts.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm hoping you didn't just now figure that out...

[jb]

Aww, someone can't tell the difference between policy positions and doxxing minors.

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

Ah I see now, they're covering up their fascism by now claiming the injury was "doxxing minors". Which is weird, because the Democrats disenfranchised the district's voters because of a refusal to apologize, not because of minor's "being doxxed".

That's like Sarcastr0 defending the IRS's ex-post-facto policy of destroying evidence as "just following normal policy"!

Serious question jb. Have you no shame?

[jb]

LOL, the thing she refused to apologize for was doxxing a minor.

[Bob from Ohio]

She posted a picture from a public event.

[jb]

And also the kid's name. Even Fox News describes what she did as "state Rep. Laurel Libby used the social media site to identify an athlete who had just rocked a high school track meet."

I think The Margrave is raising a legitimate issue, but the fact you guys insist on lying about what the censure was about makes it hard to take the discussion very seriously.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It was already big local news, as the Portland Press Herald published a recap the same day Libby made the post, which also identified the athlete by name. "

News outlets "dox minors" when they cover youth sports? Who knew?

If you guys don't wish to be taken seriously, no problem.

[jb]

This isn't complicated.

News story: Athlete X won the high jump! Not doxing.
Politician: There's some trans kid who is unfairly beating girls in the high jump. Here's her name and picture! Doxing.

Context matters. Once again, Fox News manages to cover the whole story without actually mentioning the child's name. It's not actually important to the story and avoids having a teenager be the subject of a bunch of targeted hate.

[Bob from Ohio]

"News story: Athlete X won the high jump! Not doxing.
Politician: There's some trans kid who is unfairly beating girls in the high jump. Here's her name and picture! Doxing."

Dumb.

No private info was utilized in either. The name and high school of the dude was announced at a public event.

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

Politician screen caps news story:

DOXXING!!!

[Bob from Ohio]

"also the kid's name"

From a public event

[Raccroc]

Where are you are getting "doxxing" from?

She posted a pair of photos, both of which were from public events and both of which appeared in local papers (either the exact photos or ones so similar they might have well have been).

As to "naming", she posted the first name (John and "Katie" (quoting is how it appeared in the post)) of the athlete only and no address info or phone numbers.

That is a far cry from doxxing.

Here is Fire's take for anyone interested: https://www.thefire.org/news/maines-censure-lawmaker-post-about-trans-student-athlete-attack-free-speech

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The presence of a 'public event' doesn't tell me much at all.

How much attention do high school sports events generally receive, especially outside of high school football in certain states? Minimal.

Wait! It was a local news story. Which, again, is a limited thing.

As compared to something a member of the legislature highlighted repeatedly, providing a bigger audience.

The censure (I linked it twice & won't a third time) underlined a problem is that she significantly amplified the information, including on national media. Particularly targeting one minor.

Another thing would be a person's LGBTQ status, which, something being a "public event" or whatever, wouldn't be by itself determinative, especially if the person isn't wearing a big t-shirt or something providing their status.

Did the local news story out her as trans?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-rules-republican-lawmaker-lawsuit-censure-post-transgender-120962317

I was called out for using the word 'reveal' when that is what she did -- she made known to many more people information that otherwise would not be known by as many people. The reach of something repeatedly is a problem.

A person can be "doxxed" by collecting public information and broadcasting broadly to target the person.

Doxing (or doxxing) is the action or process of collecting and disseminating someone's personal information in order to shame, embarrass, expose or intimidate them. This information can come from private sources but is often obtained from public records.

https://www.cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/transformation/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-hub/doxing/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Facts matter -- according to the Nazis, she is being punished for posting the picture of a minor child on her twitter page -- a picture which she obtained from another celebrating the child's victory -- as a boy 2 years ago and as a girl now.

The offense is that it was "endangering a child" by posting the child's picture on Twitter -- a picture of a high school champion.

Well, other legislators post pictures of high school champions all the time -- anytime anyone's kid in their district wins anything, they'd better post it if they want to get re-elected.

So her argument is she is being unfairly punished for something everyone else routinely does.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm not sure Magnus knows what a stipulation is.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm not even going into whether this legislator used the right approach in calling attention to a real problem. I'm assuming *for the sake of discussion* that she did something bad. Her colleaguess still shouldn't disenfranchise her district's voters, that's unconstitutional.

I suspect that if there were a bipartisan consensus against her then 2/3 would have voted to expel. In that case there would be a special election for the vacancy thus created, and either someone else would be elected, or the expellee would have been re-elected - and by the state constitution she would be protected from re-expulsion based on the same reasons.

Expulsion would only have disenfranchised the district for the (hopefully brief) interval needed for a special election, then the district would have gotten its vote back, either in the person of the former expellee, or some other person.

An indefinite suspension of the district's voting rights, by a bare majority (because apparently they can't get the 2/3 to expel) is all kinds of wrong.

[Martinned]

I've always found it weird how easy it is in English-speaking countries to expel or otherwise silence a member. In the Netherlands it is absolutely impossible to expel an MP or prevent them from voting. The only thing that can be done is to exclude a member from participating in the debate for a limited period. And that seems right to me, for exactly the reason you say. Democracy means that the people should get the representatives they voted for.

[Brett Bellmore]

I absolutely agree. The problem here in the US is that the Constitution explicitly states

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,", which means that if the chamber decides somebody isn't qualified or wasn't really elected, there's no constitutional basis for another branch second-guessing that decision. And,

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

And, unfortunately, it doesn't say what the limits of that punishment are, short of expulsion.

But I agree with you as a matter of policy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

King George was the reason for a lot of this, and remember that the excesses of the French Revolution hadn't yet happened in 1787.

[Martinned2]

I have no idea why you mentioned King George (presumably King George III), but when the US Constitution was written the UK had just had the John Wilkes affair, who was repeatedly expelled from Parliament for having unpopular opinions.

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

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"And, unfortunately, it doesn't say what the limits of that punishment are, short of expulsion."

If Congress could disenfranchise a whole district by majority vote, you'd think there'd at least be precedent for it.

The way Congress takes away a member's vote is expulsion or disqualification, which either creates or declares a vacancy to be filled by the voters, often in a special election. I know of no precedent for either house of Congress saying "you're a member of our body but you can't vote."

Anyway, it's the *states* to which the U. S. must guarantee a republican form of government, which means it's Congress' responsibility (if no-one else steps up) to enforce republican government at the state level.

[Speaking for normal people]

Hmmmm, let me step back on that because I know Geert Wilders and even more Aayan Hirsi Ali. Now when Aayan was serving ( former Member of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands
)

"AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - For three years Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali galvanized Dutch society with a frank account of her traumatic past and her conviction that Islam is a violent, misogynous religion.

That conviction led to death threats, the murder of her associate, filmmaker Theo van Gogh and, her critics say, the alienation of precisely those she aimed to engage as relations between Muslims and non-Muslims deteriorated as never before."

MY point is that if you get the representatives you vote for along with death threats and the murder of an associate WHAT GOOD IS THAT ???
Now Geert says :

Dutch anti-Islam political leader Geert Wilders has been convicted of insulting a group and inciting discrimination.

But no penalty was imposed by the court near Amsterdam on Wilders, whose party is leading in polls ahead of parliamentary elections in March.

Wilders was also acquitted of inciting hate over telling supporters in March 2014 he would ensure there were fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.

He called the guilty verdict "madness"

IT IS MADNESS. You wanted him but you don't let him rule

[Kazinski]

This came up briefly in Wednesday's thread, but its worth more attention.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported estimated GDP declined for the quarter by .3 percent. When I saw the headline number I was hoping that would get the Fed to start lowering rates.

But when you dive into the numbers, there isn't much hope of that.

Here is what the BEA said:

""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 thefourth quarter."

https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/gdp1q25-adv.pdf

Those are actually pretty strong numbers, and there is nothing there that will make the Fed think we are going in a recession.

To be clear it is Trump's tariffs that caused the topline number to go into the red, but because its just pre buying inventory it doesn't actually mean there was a contraction, it does mean our balance of trade got temporarily worse.

And of course I am quite happy to see that DOGE's actual cuts were high enough to be independently measured by the BEA.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Do you believe we had a recession in 2022??

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

By the pre 2022 definition, yes, but not by the current, more modern definition of recession that came out in 2022, no. It's neo-recession time. Just like we have neo-women, and neo-mostly peaceful rallies.

[Speaking for normal people]

THE definition was cooked by Biden so it's meaningless.

Antoni: Oh, right. Yeah, exactly. And again, this whole idea of we're going to call inflation all these different names, like we're going to call it transitory. At one point, they even said it was good for us because it meant the economy was growing, which is just baloney. And now it's all this nonsense of, oh, we're just going to redefine a recession as if somehow changing words is going to help the American family.

EJ Antoni, a research fellow in Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis explains exactly what marks a recession

[Poxigah145]

Recession based on two quarters of a contraction in GDP is meaningless as long as deficit spending by the federal government shows up in GDP. It's easy for an economy to grow when you borrow over $2 trillion every year in peacetime.

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

When this came up (government spending being part of GDP), not many Democrats knew it. In fact they were claiming it wasn't.

GDP as a metric is a scam, just like many government numbers. Cooked up to protect the government.

[bernard11]

You're an idiot.

Government purchases show up in GDP, as they should. If the Air Force buys an airplane then someone made that airplane, or we might say, produced it.

Transfer payments, like Social Security, are not part of GDP.

[Kazinski]

This is the change in real disposable personal income by quarter from Q4 2021 to Q1 2023 from page 13 of the BEA report.

2021 Q4 +1.0
2022 Q1 -12.5
2022 Q2 -5.5
2022 Q3 -2.9
2022 Q4 -0.8
2023 Q1 +4.8

And for contrast 2025 Q1 +1.5.

Whatever you want to say about whether what happened in 2022 was a recession or not depending on your definition, it should be pretty clear why it felt like one to consumers.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We only had one quarter of negative growth in 2022…oops.

[Kazinski]

Page 7 of the report shows Federal Government spending declined 5.1% from the 4th quarter.

[Commenter_XY]

Inflation is trending down, ever so slowly, too. That helps The Fed in deciding when and how to adjust rates. The market has calmed down, and 60/40 investors barely noticed the market commotion.

I am fine with consistent real returns from intermediate core bond funds (roughly 1% real). First time that has happened in at least a decade, maybe longer.

The Fed also needs to wind down their balance sheet further.

[jb]

Inflation has been trending down. Trump's tariffs are going to reverse that.

And given the amount of debt the government has and how much is held internationally, it's not a win for the American people to have to pay real returns on US bonds.

[Kazinski]

That's not at all clear yet, we will know in about 6 months.

Tariffs are taxes and higher taxes and lower government spending is deflationary.

Imports are 11% of consumption, and its not clear yet just how much tariffs will be and how much that will impact prices.

Lower exports may well cause decreases in prices for dome things like food, and oil has been going down.

Its very hard to predict the bottom line other than there will be winners and losers.

[jb]

There's pretty good empirical evidence that tariffs increase prices for domestically produced goods as well. And why not, that's the whole point! Domestic producers can charge more which makes the business more viable.

But you're right, maybe Trump will succeed in just crashing the economy without producing stagflation in the process. I guess that's the best case scenario. At a minimum, tariffs are inflationary. (And they're not the same as income taxes because they apply to goods regardless of whether or not the producer/seller is making a profit or the amount of overall sales.)

[Commenter_XY]

Are you making a prediction, jb? = Trump will succeed in just crashing the economy without producing stagflation in the process.

[Kazinski]

There doesn't seem to be any evidence at all Trump is crashing the economy.

"April jobs report shows US labor market remained resilient in wake of 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement"

The US economy added 177,000 nonfarm payrolls in April, more than the 138,000 expected by economists. The unemployment rate held steady at 4.2%."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/april-jobs-report-shows-us-labor-market-remained-resilient-in-wake-of-liberation-day-tariff-announcement-123204519.html

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

Given the definition of GDP includes government spending, that also contributed to the decline in GDP.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I've remarked on this before: If you shrink government spending, and increase private spending by the same amount, the way GDP is calculated it looks like a wash. But it's actually a win-win!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Should have voted for Gore!

[Speaking for normal people]

Can never tell with you what you are saying but Gore wanted to put SS money in the stock market !!! Is there a better definition of fool and conflict of interest ?????????????????

Gore backed away from his early support for allowing the government itself to invest in stocks on Social Security’s behalf. He said that his shift was driven by a recognition that allowing the government to become a big shareholder would create problems and that the stock market had not generated as consistently strong returns as he had once assumed.
Last year, Gore backed a plan under which the government would begin channeling hundreds of billions of dollars in additional money into Social Security out of general tax revenues starting in 2011. Under the plan, half of the new money going to Social Security would be invested by the government in stocks, up to a maximum of 15% of Social Security’s total reserves.

Gore said he had been swayed in part by criticism of the idea from Alan Greenspan, who opposed the plan on the grounds that politicians would not be able to resist using the government’s role as a shareholder to favor or punish certain industries or to meddle in corporate decisions.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush advocated partial privatization of SS. Gore wanted the Federal government to match investment in a private savings account for low income Americans. Looks like you voted for the wrong candidate…oops.

[Speaking for normal people]

THe $5000 Army toilet that is mislaid in days...results in normal people buying bread, shoes, school supplies and living costs.
That is what REASON doesn't get...$5000 to Jeff Bezos buys a $5000 coffee holder for fatty
NO, REALLY

Lauren Sanchez totes 'ridiculous' $5000 accessory ahead of 'Royal' wedding to billionaire Jeff Bezos

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14548231/lauren-sanchez-accessory-wedding-jeff-bezos.html

[Brett Bellmore]

So does paying people to dig and refill holes, but that doesn't mean it's economically productive. And you're discounting the taxes and borrowing that enabled the government to pay people to dig those holes and refill them.

The government's spending gets counted as part of the GDP, but the taxes that enable it don't get counted against GDP, the measure is rigged to look better and better the more money gets diverted to government, even if people's lives get worse.

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

Thanks to the Sacastr0's for ginning up yet another government scam.

[Speaking for normal people]

Digging and refilling holes...you must be referring to FDR's public works 🙂
There is plenty of work to be done, Brett, so that is just ridiculous. As to the taxes and borrowing that applies more to a Governor Newsom project to raise minimum wage ,which actually put many out of work, made those who stayed in businees much harder to make a profit, etc. No, don't make me a supporter of that. I never said that.

People's lives are worse and it is Biden and Pelois largely and --- galactically ironic --- it was the Inflation Reduction Act mainly

A study by 3 Ph.D. economists at the San Francisco Fed has found that “price markups for goods and services” — aka, price gouging — has “not been a main driver” of recent inflation. Instead, the root causes are “large” federal government “fiscal transfers and increased unemployment benefits” (aka, social spending) and Federal Reserve policies like lowering “the federal funds rate target to essentially zero.”

BTW Those Fed Reserve policies...it was failed Yellen who recently said we need at least $3 TRILLION a year for climate change.

“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
— Euripides

[Martinned2]

So does paying people to dig and refill holes, but that doesn't mean it's economically productive.

For the record, that might be.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump blamed Biden.

Seems he doesn't agree with you this is not a problem, nor that it is an expected upshot of his policies.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, just like Biden blamed everything on Trump for as long as he could. Par for the course, but we know better. And definitely from here on out the economy is all Trumps.

Biden even claimed inflation was 9% when he took office.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/14/politics/fact-check-biden-inflation-when-he-became-president

[Sarcastr0]

So is it or isn’t it a good thing?

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

It's par for the course.

[Bob from Ohio]

"just like Biden blamed everything on Trump for as long as he could"

Gaslighto is so upset that a politician blamed another politician for something. Its only happened about a trillion times but this is different!

[Z Crazy]

Ive been thinking.

the October 7, 2023 attacks against Israel is often likened to Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

It is more like Operation: Barbarossa.

In Operation: Barbarossa, German troops committed atrocities against civilians, just like 10/7.

And the Soviets had actually supplied the Germans with weapons and materiel, with the last shipment arriving the morning the first bombs fell.

Now look here.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I agree it’s not like 9/11 because Shin Bet or the IDF should have prevented the hundreds of terrorists using crude military equipment in the strike. So 9/11 was 20 terrorists using box cutters that should have been prevented by the maxim—never negotiate with terrorists. Apparently that maxim had an asterisk that allowed terrorists to negotiate their way into the cockpit of a commercial airplane for what?? What good is being in the cockpit of a commercial airplane?? You can’t fly it and it’s not like there are signs that direct you places 30,000 feet in the air. Nothing good can come from allowing terrorists into a cockpit and yet we a policy of allowing the terrorists to negotiate their way into cockpits…so stupid.

[Moderation4ever]

Not sure what you are talking about? Part of the problem before 9/11 was that airplane cockpits were relatively open and access to the cockpits was easy. The terrorist did not negotiate their way into the cockpit they forced their way. This was changed after 9/11 with cockpit door reenforced and closed during the flights.

[Frank Drackman]

and as the father of a Delta pilot (737-900) many of them carry guns, and let me tell you, there are certain times of the month I'm not so sure that's a good idea. (No Joke, "Late Luteal Phase Dysphoric Disorder (AKA "PMS") is a real condition (boy, is it a real condition), or at least as real as "Fibromyalgia", "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome", or "ADD" it's even got it's own ICD10 code, N94.89

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, if they can't be trusted with a dozen bullets, why should they be trusted with what literally is a guided missile?

[Frank Drackman]

Ed, is your middle name "Aspergers"?? I was being sarcastic

[jimc5499]

The policy at the time was to negotiate with hijackers in order to get the plane on the ground. It was driven more by a fear of lawsuits than anything else. 9-11 changed that. At the time using an aircraft as a kamikaze weapon was considered unthinkable.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bingo—we allowed negotiations with terrorists while in the air…what good can come from allowing terrorists in the cockpit??

[Commenter_XY]

This is the nightmare scenario China fears. So do I. War is now significantly more likely, unless China comes to the table, which they might ultimately choose to do, and bide their time.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-tariffs-china/2025/05/01/id/1209192/

Widespread unrest has erupted across China as President Donald Trump's steep tariffs devastate the nation's export-driven economy, triggering factory closures, unpaid wages, and massive protests by workers...

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Uh, they did that to themselves with Zero Covid policy. That reminds me of a little rhyme we would say at school:

Me Chinese
Me play joke
Me put Covid in your throat!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Don't worry, it will be over by Christmas. /sarc

[bernard11]

As an aside, note that your link quotes Trump:

"They were making from us a trillion dollars a year. They were ripping us off like nobody's ever ripped us off," Trump said. "They're not doing that anymore."

Now, this is an astonishingly stupid statement, deserving of universal ridicule.

But, according to you, the policy makes war "now significantly more likely." If you are right, and you might be, Trump's tariff idiocy is not only foolish and destructive, it also increases the chance of war. That's quite a combination.

[David Nieporent]

Now, this is an astonishingly stupid statement, deserving of universal ridicule.

Since it's the age of Trump and we don't need to be politically correct anymore, let’s just call Trump what he is: retarded. He actually thinks that someone else making money in a transaction means that they are ripping you off.

[Mr. Bumble]

TDS induced insomnia?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Did you see Vance at a Nucor steel plant yesterday?? Nucor is the company that developed mini mill technology that bankrupted Big Steel. And Vance even mentioned West Virginny!! Guess what? Nucor doesn’t use coke to make steel, they use electricity probably from hydro to make steel from scrap. So the company that benefits from steel tariffs is the company that bankrupted Big Steel—crony capitalism at its finest!!

[BBSquatter]

Speaking of coke, reliable sources report that the Clinton FUNDation made a killing in buying opiates in Asia to sell to Mexico cartels to flood the US Border and hence cook our food, mow our lawns and do the jobs Americans refuse to do because they are beneath them. Must have been some awesome opium bro

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Badass! I love opiates and they have traditionally been legal.

[Mr. Bumble]

What this country needs is cheap over the counter Laudanum.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Most countries have OTC codeine at small dosages along with OTC Robaxin muscle relaxers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Soma -- Laudanum without the problems.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fact that somebody else is making money in a transaction doesn't MEAN that they're ripping you off, but it isn't inconsistent with them ripping you off, either.

I mean, industrial espionage, patent violations, they ARE routinely ripping us off.

The situation here is that, on the theory that as China became more prosperous they would liberalize, we agreed to absurdly favorable to them trade rules, and deliberately turned a blind eye to numerous abuses, to accelerate their economic growth. That theory turned out to be wrong. Instead fueling their economic growth just made them a bigger military threat.

So now we're getting rid of the favorable trade rules, and treating them as what they are: A nasty adversary.

Of course, it's not in the financial interest of a lot of people to admit that theory was bullshit from the start.

[jb]

"The situation here is that, on the theory that as China became more prosperous they would liberalize, we agreed to absurdly favorable to them trade rules, and deliberately turned a blind eye to numerous abuses, to accelerate their economic growth."

This is dumb. It wasn't a big conspiracy. People wanted cheap stuff and China could make it. That's the whole explanation you need. That doesn't make it good policy, but China didn't get some special set of rules that other low cost countries weren't also getting.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it wasn't a big conspiracy, in the sense that it wasn't a secret. It was public policy.

[Sarcastr0]

You're acting like there is only one reason we do a lot of trade with China.

[Bwaaah]

You're acting like he's acting like there is only one reason we do a lot of trade with China.

Quit acting.

[bernard11]

I mean, industrial espionage, patent violations, they ARE routinely ripping us off.

Then address that, the real problem, rather than the imaginary one that they are "ripping us off" by selling us stuff at low prices.

we agreed to absurdly favorable to them trade rules,

Examples, please.

So now we're getting rid of the favorable trade rules, and treating them as what they are: A nasty adversary.

Refusing to buy cheap TV's is not treating them as a nasty adversary.

[Riva]

Given your support of the Biden’s insanely irresponsible foreign policy, I thought you clowns liked the idea of WWIII? There’s no pleasing some trolls.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Putin still has nukes. Oops.

[Speaking for normal people]

I have no special knowledge just life experience and genaral knowledge. I think he will be assassinated. Without regard to any motive that would be given, it furnishes that perfect Chinese excuse "a new beginning" Same for Putin. If It happens I will drop back to crow.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Assassinating the POTUS serves only to cement his policies as national priorities -- civil rights after Kennedy, civil service act after Garfield. The problem is that the Chinese don't understand US history.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe they should've read a history book instead of your dissertation.

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

The bugs shouldn't have built their economy on ripping others off.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Chinese citizens have told me that the corruption is so bad, so much of a burden on the economy, that a revolution is viewed as inevitable.

...triggering factory closures, unpaid wages, and massive protests by workers..." -- a lot of that is indirect consequences of corruption.

[David Nieporent]

Chinese citizens have told me that the corruption is so bad, so much of a burden on the economy, that a revolution is viewed as inevitable.

Is that before, or after, the six or eight American civil wars that you have predicted/prayed for based on what truckers told you?

[apedad]

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Secures Agreement to Establish United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund

The Treasury Department and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) will work together with the Government of Ukraine to finalize governance and advance this important partnership.
- The United States’ DFC will work together with Ukraine’s State Organization Agency on Support Public-Private Partnership, both of which are backed by the full faith and credit of their respective nations.

This partnership between the United States and Ukraine establishes a fund that will receive 50% of royalties, license fees, and other similar payments from natural resource projects in Ukraine.
- That money will be invested in new projects in Ukraine, which will generate long term returns for both the American and Ukrainian peoples.
- As new projects are identified, resources in the fund can be quickly allocated towards economic growth, job creation, and other key Ukrainian development priorities.
Indirect benefits will include a stronger private sector and more robust, lasting infrastructure for Ukraine’s long-term success.

The partnership will be controlled by a company with equal representation of three Ukrainian and three American board members, who will work together through a collaborative process to make decisions for allocation of fund resources, such as investment and distributions.
- The partnership will also bring the highest levels of transparency and accountability to ensure that the people of Ukraine and the United States are able to enjoy the benefits of Ukraine’s reconstruction.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-secures-agreement-to-establish-united-states-ukraine-reconstruction-investment-fund/

Where's Congress in this?

Can a president just make agreements and set up corporations without congressional oversight?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Can a president just make agreements ..."
Ask Obama.

[A Japanese Student]

It sounds like this is a private corporation and the government of United States has no formal stake (other than arranging diplomatic talks).

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Qatar thing is hilarious! In Trump’s first term he appointed the moron Tillerson SoS just to piss off Democrats and he didn’t realize Tillerson is an honorary member of the Qatar royal family…and MBS gave Trump and Kushner billions to stab Qatar in the back. I honestly don’t think Trump even knew anything about Qatar…but now he knows they have hundreds of billions in their sovereign wealth fund just like Saudi Arabia and thankfully Qatar is willing to throw money at Trump. America and Qatar and Australia dominate the global LNG market and LNG is the most important fossil fuel and so it’s best for America and the world for Qatar and Trump to be on good terms…and Qatar just happens to have what Trump loves most!! $$$$$$. 😉

[Speaking for normal people]

Sam , your heart is almost black diamonds. Here is Biden the Archfool charging $300 000 per speech and Trump not accepting Presidential salary and all you can see is St Biden.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So? Trump really did put his financial interests over longstanding American interests. Now a lot of Jews don’t like Qatar because they host Hamas…they do that to help America because we can’t have direct talks with Hamas. They “lie with dirty dogs” to help America have a backchannel which is better than no backchannel. Luckily Trump seems to understand that now but he didn’t in 2017…Trump very clearly had no clue what he was doing in 2017 and even let McMaster manipulate him in Afghanistan.

[Speaking for normal people]

The main reason Trump is hated is the main reason he is cleaing house: He is not a young ladder-climber or an old 50 year sub-sub-standard bumbler like Biden. DC hates the true outsider who shows how compromised and self-serving the Biden clones are. As for money-grubbing let's see :

Jan 9, 2014 — Of 534 current members of Congress, at least 268 had an average net worth of $1 million or more in 2012, according to disclosures filed last year.

Trump embodies all that opposes the rich lazy citizen-hating frauds. Do you really think preacher Al Green is a wise Christian with what we need governing us?

[jb]

Trump is literally selling access to the President in exchange for investing in his crypto scam. Who needs $400K a year when you can get people who want to lobby you to put multiples of that directly in your pocket?

[Drewski]

"Where's Congress in this?"

This is a treaty, so Congress is on deck. The Constitution empowers the President to make treaties with the consent of Congress, which means he negotiates it and they approve - or reject - it afterwards in a process called "ratification."

[Brett Bellmore]

They're perfectly capable of rejecting treaties in advance, informally, at which time most administrations recently have gone ahead anyway and just called the result an "accord" rather than a "treaty".

By the way, Trump pulled out of the Paris accord again, and this time didn't bother with the Accord's own 3 year timetable for doing so, he made the withdrawal immediate.

That's good, but he should have been a bit more explicit about the fact that we never were party to it in the first place, because it's a treaty that was never ratified.

[Speaking for normal people]

Brett, This is all from the root problem of Congress attending to what doesn't matter so as to not have to do real work.
Where to put the statue to the inventor of Corn Flakes, and is it racist? VS "what happened to the $182 Billion sent to Ukraine"

It is much higher than $182 Billion but I found the lowest non-contestable estimate
Ukraine Oversight, the website of the special inspector general for Operation Atlantic Resolve created years ago to track assistance to Ukraine, states the amount is a bit higher at $182 billion.

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

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[tylertusta]

Brett, This is all from the root problem of Congress attending to what doesn't matter so as to not have to do real work.

In other situations, sure.

For controversial agreements like climate change or the Iran nuclear deal, Obama and Biden never bothered to even submit them to the Senate for ratification because they knew they'd never get enough Senators onboard for ratification.

Rather than see a Paris Treaty go down in flames, they just attempted to commit the nation to its terms anyways. Same thing with the Iran deal that Trump tore up as soon as he stepped foot in the oval office.

[apedad]

But is this a treaty?

Nowhere in the announcement does it say it's a treaty.

[Brett Bellmore]

If it's not a treaty, it's no more than a Presidential pinky promise, entirely lacking in any legal force.

The executive branch has, historically, asserted that we're bound by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to not take actions contrary to signed treaties even if they have never been ratified. (It's not coincidental that said Convention is an unratified treaty...)

The Senate takes the position that you either ratify it, or it's meaningless. The Senate has the better case.

Really, Trump should just come right out and agree with the Senate on this.

[Martinned]

Wouldn't it be easier to simply, you know, ratify a treaty every once in a while? Somewhere in Foggy Bottom there's a pile of treaties on a desk so high that you can't even see over it of treaties that have been ratified by pretty much every country on the planet except the US. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is only one of them. There's also the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, or the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Pick one, they're all as controversial as sliced bread.

[tylertusta]

We actually do ratify treaties every few years.

We just don't ratify those that are against the interests of the United States. Pick a 'sliced bread' treaty of your choice and you'll find something that we don't like about it or something that is against the US Constitution.

[Martinned2]

Sure, that double taxation treaty with Chile was a real doozy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly (95-2) to approve the income tax treaty with Chile in June 2023, and President Biden signed the instrument of ratification"

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, but the inevitable precondition of ratifying a treaty once in a while, is the President negotiating treaties the Senate would be WILLING to ratify.

Perhaps if we dispensed with this notion that Presidents could obligate the country by merely signing an agreement, Presidents would have more motivation to negotiate treaties the Senate would be willing to ratify?

[John F. Carr]

What is the obligation of the government of the United States?

[Malika the Maiz]

Detailed breakdown of Canada’s recent election:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/28/world/canada/results-canada-federal-election.html

Note there seems to be more than a few districts (ridings) where the votes, nearly a week later, have not been fully counted. FRAUD, amirite?

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

Why do they even vote in Canada when their Queen can just dismiss their government whenever she wishes?

[Brett Bellmore]

As a practical matter she can only dismiss their government "whenever she wishes" so long as she never tries to. Any attempt to do so would expose that they'd just ignore it.

[Martinned]

Maybe. The Whitlam affair isn't that long ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, *I* think half a century isn't that long ago, I'm an old geezer. Most people around now hadn't even been born then.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you calling Charles a queen?

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

Who's Charles?

[Riva]

If Canadian citizens are bound and determined to beat themselves politically to death like 3rd grade dropouts playing hockey, that’s their problem. Maybe this will push Alberta to secede? We’ll gladly take Alberta.

[Martinned]

At least they still have press freedom: https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom

[hobie]

Another election stolen from the hayseeds. They'll have to peacefully and patriotically crack a few police skulls in Ottawa to make their displeasure plain.

[Martinned]

King Charles III will come and personally read the Speech from the Throne later this month: https://bsky.app/profile/mark-carney.bsky.social/post/3lo7berw32c2e

Good to see the Commonwealth sticking together at a time when democracy, liberty, and the rule of law are under attack in so many other places.

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump starts talking about Harlem when asked about Harvard funding freeze

“When asked by Stephen A. Smith to explain his administration’s threat to withhold funding from the university, the president started talking about an entirely different location.

"We had riots in Harlem, in Harlem, and frankly, if you look at what’s gone on, and people from Harlem went up and they protested, Stephen. And they protested very strongly against Harvard. They happened to be on my side," Mr Trump told Mr Smith.”

https://www.the-independent.com/tv/news/trump-town-hall-harlem-harvard-b2743100.html

[Moderation4ever]

Its important to remember that people the age of the President have good days and bad days.

[David Nieporent]

When was Trump's last good day?

[Mr. Bumble]

Today?

[Frank Drackman]

November 5, 2024 was pretty good

[Mr. Bumble]

Every body has good days and bad days.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Another Biden-style incoherence, though Trump has made more of them than Biden has.

[Mr. Bumble]

What incoherence? Biden was sharp as a tack. The MSM told us so.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only because Trump says about 100 words for every word Biden ever uttered. Percentage wise Biden was more incoherent.

The do have different speaking styles, though, and I'm no fan at all of Trump's "ramble on until hopefully the listener figures out what you're getting at" style.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, that's not Trump, that's you doing a ton of work to pretend he's sane.
And normal.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree here. Brett is unusual in that he expends a lot of effort to defend a person he says he disagrees with. I assume Brett disagreed with President Biden, but I don't remember him coming to Biden defense.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump is in a disagreeable fashion trying to do things I generally approve of. Biden was, in a disagreeable fashion, trying to do things I generally disapproved of. That's the relevant difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have to tell you that, as somebody who came within a hairsbreadth of acing the verbal SAT back in '75, and had to work hard to learn to speak colloquially instead of in perfectly grammatical English like somebody in a book, (That latter isn't a brag, it's a consequence of my lack of social skills and spending my formative years buried in books as a result.) all you zombies sound incoherent to me. I'm not impressed with the difference between one zombie's rambling and another zombie's rambling. All I care is if it's possible to figure out what they were getting at when they finish talking.

In Trump's case that's generally quite easy, no matter how annoying I find his manner of speaking. Instead of carefully formulating his ideas, and then expressing them concisely, he approaches them by successive approximation, starting out with something that isn't right, and then qualifying it over and over until he reaches what he means.

This works. It's VERY subject to having things taken out of context, which is why professional politicians train themselves to not speak that way, but it works. And ergo does not qualify as "incoherent".

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's textbook ADHD...

[Sarcastr0]

Do you see the shitload of work you're doing?

Successive approximations of his ideas? Really??

[Michael P]

He was probably talking about the Harlem that's in one of states 51 through 57, full of young men who look like Obama's imaginary son.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you ever wonder why you're spending more and more time deflecting from what Trump's said and done?

[Speaking for normal people]

WHAT is your point ??????
Thomas Sowell (who went to Harvard )did the same thing, when he pointed out on Uncommon Knowledge that his daughter went to the finest school he could find and "almost got as good an education as I got in Harlem"
What is your point???????

[Martinned]

Some non-Trump news today:

Ireland, as the country where Tiktok has its EU legal headquarters, has fined Tiktok €530m for sending personal data of EU-based users to China.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0502/1510729-tiktok-fine/

It's one of those typical Big Tech situations where the fine may not be big enough to actually ensure compliance, but probably about as high as it can be under the law. So the company either complies now or it gets higher fines in the future, and acts as a nice cash cow in the meantime.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Looks like, again, no "Today in Supreme Court History" post. So . . .

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (decided May 2, 1927): the infamous “three generations of imbeciles are enough” case, opinion by Holmes (whose father was an early supporter of Darwin); upholding state sterilization law (procedural safeguards not at issue); never explicitly overruled

Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (decided May 2, 1910): Philippine Bill of Rights (at that time a territory of the United States) is congruent with our Bill of Rights; statute as to making false entry in cash book requiring twelve years (chained wrist to ankle) plus of hard labor plus permanent disqualification from voting and from public office is “cruel and unusual punishment”

Montana v. Wyoming, 563 U.S. 368 (decided May 2, 2011): Wyoming can switch method of irrigation consistent with Yellowstone River Compact of 1951 (between Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota) so long as same acreage is irrigated (Wyoming switched from flood to sprinkler irrigation, a more efficient method which resulted in less water being returned to the river for downstream Montana use) (OT, but -- I went across the country to California for law school, and was awakened rudely at 2 a.m. by sprinklers outside the dorm -- what the heck? are they so desperate to have green grass in this semi-desert? if they’d rather live in Connecticut why don’t they move there??) -- it reminded me of what Mark Twain wrote in “Roughing It”:
One of the queerest things I know of, is to hear tourists from ‘the States’ go into ecstasies over the loveliness of ‘ever-blooming California’. But perhaps they would modify them if they knew how old Californians, with the memory full upon them of the dust-covered and questionable summer greens of Californian ‘verdure’, stand astonished, and filled with worshipping admiration, in the presence of the lavish richness, the brilliant green, the infinite freshness, the spend-thrift variety of form and species and foliage that make an Eastern landscape a vision of Paradise itself. The idea of a man falling into raptures over grave and sombre California, when that man has seen New England’s meadow-expanses and her maples, oaks and cathedral-windowed elms decked in summer attire, or the opaline splendors of autumn descending upon her forests, comes very near being funny. No land with an unvarying climate can be very beautiful. The tropics are not, for all the sentiment that is wasted on them. They seem beautiful at first, but sameness impairs the charm by and by. Change is the handmaiden Nature requires to do her miracles with. The land that has four well-defined seasons, cannot lack beauty, or pall with monotony. Each season brings a world of enjoyment and interest in the watching of its unfolding, its gradual, harmonious development, its culminating graces -- and just as one begins to tire of it, it passes away and a radical change comes, with new witcheries and new glories in its train. And I think that to one in sympathy with nature, each season, in its turn, seems the loveliest.

United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U.S. 350 (decided May 2, 1994): 18 U.S.C. §3501, restricting federal court use of confessions made after six hours in custody, does not apply if the custody was on state charges (confession to counterfeiting made after being held for three days on state narcotics charge) (the “silver platter doctrine” crawls out of its coffin!)

Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (decided May 2, 2021): “similar acts” of prior receiving of apparently stolen TV’s from same source (for suspiciously low price, large quantity, and no bill of sale) was admissible in trial on possession of stolen videotapes to show knowledge that they were stolen

Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (decided May 2, 1988): no antitrust violation by supplier who upon request of another supplier stopped selling to plaintiff dealer if no price fixing involved

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (decided May 2, 1983): anti-loitering statute requiring suspect to provide “creditable and reliable” identification struck down as vague

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro Township, 431 U.S. 85 (decided May 2, 1977): To combat “white flight”, town prohibited “for sale” and “sold” yard signs. Court holds that this is a First Amendment violation.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Mass., 596 U.S. 243 (decided May 2, 2022): violation of Free Exercise to not allow organization to fly its “Christian flag” at one of three flag poles at plaza in front of City Hall reserved for organization staging that day’s events (the other two flag poles show the United States flag and the Massachusetts flag, and on non-event days the City of Boston flag flies on the third pole)

Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (decided May 2, 1921): Congress was outside its powers of regulation of federal elections (art. I, §4) when it placed limits on how much a candidate can spend on his primary campaign

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

In Buck v. Bell, Virginia’s lawmakers were acting on what most scientists then believed at the time, that some severe mental disabilities were hereditary and imposed a lifelong cost on both the person and the public.

If a state can draft citizens to fight a war or vaccinate them to stop an epidemic, why can't it order a one‑time medical procedure that keeps future children from inheriting a grave impairment and frees taxpayers from decades of institutional care? In order to promote the general welfare of the state?

The statute gave notice, a hearing, counsel, and appeals, so—under the deferential legal standards of the era, that's the "due process" the Left is crying about over that MS-13 human trafficking wife beater illegal, the Court should've reasonably concluded the law was a rational public‑health measure within the state’s police power.

Tada!

[Brett Bellmore]

"what most scientists then believed at the time, that some severe mental disabilities were hereditary"

Most are just birth defects, sure, but at least SOME are hereditary. Translocation based Downs syndrome, for instance. Or "Fragile X".

[David Nieporent]

It's worth noting that most modern scholarship has concluded that the claims about Buck's intellectual capabilities were lies anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I know, it was bs, but I just wanted to clarify that there ARE hereditary mental disabilities, even if the Buck wasn't an example of such.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd say the bigger thing to be clear about is eugenics is a pretty bad thing to base your policy on.

[A Japanese Student]

I believe draft is a form of involuntary servitude (yes, I know the Court disagrees).

I think there are some fundamental limits on what the public welfare allows. If a vaccine can help deter the spread of infectious diseases, then there is clearly a public welfare rationale. In general, the Government can restrict one's personal liberty in order to protect others, to a certain degree.

If the "vaccine" is targeted at noninfectious diseases - say, stroke - then I think the result should be different. One having a stroke does not injure any person. Sure, it could be a fiscal burden to the state, but I don't think that alone can justify bodily intrusion.

Also, the way we see disability has changed dramatically in the last four decades or so. There are two overlapping views of disability (medical and social), both valid to some extent.

Okay, I think I came up with a modern day equivalent. Science has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that not taking enough folic acid during pregnancy increases the likelihood of spina bifida. Spina bifida, while permanent, is not infectious. It does not harm any other person (well, maybe except when they urinate on the floor - spina bifida causes incontinence). Is there a liberty interest in not taking folic acid?

[Brett Bellmore]

I would assume abortion rights advocates, based on their reasoning, would say "yes", while pro-lifers like me would say something like, "Normally, but it's at its nadir in regards to potentially pregnant women."

Incidentally... The FDA spent a long while on the wrong side of this. They were concerned that folic acid supplementation could mask B12 deficiency, leading to people developing pernicious anemia without knowing it.

The problem is, they weren't content to set relatively low levels for folic acid fortification of foods. They tried to legally prohibit supplement manufacturers from telling the public about the connection between folic acid and spinal bifida. Declared that talking about the connection was "misleading" because the FDA itself had not approved of the health claim.

They had to be taken to court repeatedly to get this reversed.

[Brett Bellmore]

" it reminded me of what Mark Twain wrote in “Roughing It”"

Yeah, my bro lives in California, and while I'll admit I like the smell of the sage, and envy his ability to have an orange tree in his backyard, (They won't *quite* survive here in the SC Piedmont.) I don't really want to live in a desert.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The price of water has eliminated the green suburban lawns one saw 50 years ago in the East.

[apedad]

Where is Prof. Blackman anyway?

Maybe’s he’s off pouting that he didn’t get this nomination; Trump announced his intent to nominate Whitney Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation on the Tennessee Attorney General's Office, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Or he’s worming – I mean working – on one of these nominations: five current or pending appellate vacancies: One on the First Circuit, two on the Third Circuit, one on the Seventh Circuit, and one on the Ninth Circuit. There are also fifty-five district court openings.

[Bob from Ohio]

He lives and works in the 5th circuit. DC circuit would also be an option for him.

No vacancies in either.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judicial-vacancies/current-judicial-vacancies

[Bob from Ohio]

I meant Circuit court vacancies. I guess JB would take a district post if no alternative but I doubt he'd jump at one.

[Zarniwoop]

I guess JB would take a district post if no alternative but I doubt he'd jump at one.

I concur. There's way too much actual work and long days. No media exposure! The media ignores you 99% of the time - basically 100% until you get that rare case that's in the spotlight.

The district court judge I clerked for had a criminal case go up to the S.Ct. ... in the 1980s. He was never again in the news to that extent.

[David Nieporent]

I concur. There's way too much actual work and long days. No media exposure! The media ignores you 99% of the time - basically 100% until you get that rare case that's in the spotlight.

Um, the media ignores you unless you say or do something outrageous.

We are talking about Blackman, here.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Okay. I saw "There are also fifty-five district court openings" too.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Buck v. Bell was far from a compelled result even given the law at the time. Multiple lower courts found eugenics laws constitutionally problematic on various grounds. On the facts, it appears NONE of the generations were imbeciles.

Weems has quotable language taking a "living constitutional" (deemed by some as akin to pineapple on pizza) view of the Eighth Amendment.

Shurtleff was written by Breyer with the conservatives other than Roberts & Barrett joining concurrences to try to go further. Breyer wrote the opinion based on the Free Speech Clause.

Since it was private speech, the Establishment Clause was not violated by requiring the usage of the flag. It was an acceptable result, but I think they should have allowed local discretion:

https://ffrf.org/legal/amicus-briefs/shurtleff-v-city-of-boston-2021/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that Imbecile at the time meant someone with a mental age of three to seven years and an IQ of 25–50, above "idiot" and below "moron".

[Dan Schiavetta]

Imbecile was higher than moron -- at least that's what I remember. When I was in the mental health field (1980's) I would see these terms in records from the 1950's. At the time the hierarchy in "mental retardation" was "educable" to "trainable" down to "profoundly".

The new term for "mentally retarded" is "intellectual disability", which is less descriptive. Unlike with race or gender or sexual orientation, being less intelligent will always be thrown around as an insult. So every generation we will have to invent new terms for it.

(One odd thing was when someone was lobotomized (the last-resort treatment for schizophrenia, if electroshock didn't work, before Thorazine came on the scene in 1954). The lobotomy was referred to in the file after the fact but you could never find out where it was done, or by whom.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks Joe!

[not guilty]

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), are two sides of the same statist coin. Each decision upheld the authority of a state (or commonwealth) to decide who reproduces and who doesn't.

Suppose a hypothetical state were to declare it a crime, punishable by imprisonment, for anyone under the age of 21 to give birth within the state's borders. Such a statute would easily survive rational basis analysis.

In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. On rational-basis review, a classification in a state statute comes to the courts bearing a strong presumption of validity, and those attacking the rationality of the legislative classification have the burden to negative every conceivable basis which might support it. In other words, a legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data. FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313-315 (1993).

A legislature could rationally believe that adult mothers are more likely than younger females to bear healthy babies. A legislature could rationally believe that discouraging teenagers from becoming pregnant will have a beneficial effect on the state's economy -- young mothers are less likely to complete their education and become more economically productive. A legislature could rationally believe that younger mothers and their offspring are more likely to depend on welfare or charity, thus protecting and enhancing the state's fiscal condition.

Is that the kind of decision making we should want to delegate to state legislators?

[John F. Carr]

A few decades ago a local prosecutor in Montana or Idaho wanted to charge unmarried pregnant women with fornication or some such archaic crime that was still on the books. The prosecutor would have had to prove that the illegal sex act occurred within the court's jurisdiction. If the crime is illegal pregnancy proving proper venue is easier.

I never saw a followup story. I assume the plan was aborted.

[Martinned]

Switzerland has decided to ban Hamas, which makes me wonder why they haven't done that literally decades ago. I guess it could have something to do with Switzerland's neutrality policy and/or its desire to act as a place where warring parties from foreign lands can come to negotiate, but it doesn't say in the article.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/switzerland-enact-hamas-ban-may-15-2025-04-30/

[Speaking for normal people]

NO,it's dumb people waking up

Swiss 'burqa ban' to begin next year
Violations of the controversial ban on face coverings in public spaces would result in fines of up to $1,144.
by Adi Nirman Published on 11-06-2024

[Martinned]

A ship with aid supplies for Gaza mysteriously sank off the coast of Malta. I'm sure that's absolutely fine, and that no one important will wonder out loud whether that's any way to repay the EU for helping to put out all those fires.

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2025/0502/1510706-middle-east/

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd think it was a way of repaying Hamas for starting them...

[Martinned]

You realise that this was not a Palestinian ship, right?

[Martinned]

It's sure been a long time since the Lusitania...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania#American

[Brett Bellmore]

And... who exactly was going to get the aid, when it reached Gaza?

[Martinned2]

The Palestinians. What does that have to do with whether it is OK to sink a ship in the middle of the sea?

[Brett Bellmore]

It has to do with why your response to me was irrelevant to what I'd said.

I didn't say that it's OK to sink a ship in the middle of the sea. I said that, assuming it was Israel repaying anybody, they were repaying Hamas, not the EU.

Because of who was going to end up with the aid, in the end.

[Martinned2]

I said that, assuming it was Israel repaying anybody, they were repaying Hamas, not the EU.

If that's what you meant to say, it was irrelevant to what I said.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh well. The sea is such a big place, and who knows what could happen. Sounds like tragic accident. And if not, it was a good shot.

[Bob from Ohio]

"mysteriously sank "

Good. I do wonder who would do such a good thing.

[Martinned2]

It's sure been a long time since the Lusitania...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania#American

[Martinned]

The German Agency for the protection of the constitution ("Verfassungsschutz") has formally designated the AfD as a right-wing extremist group. Every previous time they opened investigations in to the AfD or groups affiliated with the AfD they got sued all the way up to the constitutional court, and often ended up rebuked, so you'd better believe that today's decision is based on a case file a mile long.

https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2025/0502/1510716-germany-afd/

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

Totally not fascist to oppress opposing political parties!

[hobie]

You're right. It would be fascist to oppress parties, universities, students, corporations etc. that advocate for peace in Gaza. You rubes are finally coming around!

[William of Brooklyn]

I haven't seen anyone advocating for peace in Gaza. I've only seen people advocating for Hamas, or for the elimination of Israel (which is the same thing, just stated another way.) Certainly, Hamas has never advocated peace. Ceasefire, sure, as a tactical measure, but never peace. And absent the elimination of Hamas as an organization, the acceptance of Israel's right to exist, and finding an Adenauer for the Palestinian people, peace will not come. Ever.

[hobie]

Newsflash....I can and do vocally support the Palestinian people. Doesn't mean I support Hamas. Doesn't mean I want to eradicate Israel. Also doesn't make me a terrorist. Until you can understand that distinction, peace will not come. Ever.

[William of Brooklyn]

Right. I support the Palestinian people too. Just like I support the German people. But until they were de-Nazified, and accepted their neighbors borders, and very existence, and were led by democratic forces, there could be no peace. So we're in complete agreement.

[Jerry B.]

Hamas got, and keeps, the Palestinian people in this mess. If you support the Palestinians, perhaps you should oppose Hamas.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, you support hamas, but are too chickenshit to come right out and own it.

[hobie]

Sigh

[Don Nico]

hobie, the "palestinian people" have have supported the elimination of Jews from Palestine for 100 years. If you support their rhetoric, you support the eradication of Jews. Be honest for a change.

[Josh R]

What nonsense. Plenty of people, including Israeli Jews and Palestinians, support a two-state solution in the name of supporting both Israel and Palestinians.

[Don Nico]

What the Hamasophiles are demonstrating for is the elimination of the Jewish state... nothing less. If you think that opposing that is fascism, then fuck you.

[Martinned]

Case Mudde, who is one of the world's leading experts on the far right (for now), has a quick explainer:

This is a BIG decision, which will undoubtedly get a legal follow-up.

It allows not only state surveillance but could also hinder the growing normalization, as public sector employees cannot be members of “extreme right” organizations.

And yes, there have been court cases in the past about whether laws that guarantee MPs (in Germany: MdBs) the right to have their old public sector job back after they lose their seat apply to AfD MdBs as well, and whether that still applies if the old job in question was a judgeship.

[Mr. Bumble]

How far right is "far right"?

[Martinned]

Judging by your comments here, you'd fit right in.

[tylertusta]

Judging by your comments here, whomever opposes you would fit right in.

[Mr. Bumble]

Point to one.

[Martinned]

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/30/wednesday-open-thread-14/?comments=true#comment-11026870

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/30/wednesday-open-thread-14/?comments=true#comment-11027898

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, that's two, neither of which is remotely right wing let alone far right.

[tylertusta]

He has proven my point!

[Martinned2]

Sure, wanting to break down the rule of law in general and the civil rights of ethnic minorities in particular definitely isn't far right! /s

[Mr. Bumble]

"Who knew 100 lawyers quitting meant the end of civil rights."
"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!"

Reading a lot into these.

[Martinned2]

I'm only allowed two examples. Any more and the commenting software will bounce my comment.

[Bob from Ohio]

"designated the AfD as a right-wing extremist group"

So, someone in the agency is a secret AfD supporter. Because all these efforts to silence the party just seems to get them more votes.

[Brett Bellmore]

But more votes don't do them a lot of good if they end up banned, which is where this is leading.

[Commenter_XY]

Then this is heading to lamp post territory. One might try stopping the rising of the sun in the East, b/c trying to stop AfD will lead to the same result.

[William of Brooklyn]

I agree. Whether one supports AfD, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Calin Georgescu, Donald Trump, or (coming soon to an excuse near you) Nigel Farage, the effort to keep them off the ballot and disenfranchise their voters is madness in tactical terms for their opponents, AND it is rabidly anti-democratic in general. The EU in particular, which has been written about for decades due to its "democratic deficit" is doubling down on what is essentially a new kind of aristocracy that not only needs to, but enjoys, ignoring the popular will. And free speech. Etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter comes out in support of the German Nazi resurgence.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/le-pen-wants-clean-break-with-germanys-afd-after-nazi-ss-comments-2024-05-22/

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-election-afd-alice-weidel-doubles-down-holocaust-comments/

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/alternative-germany-afd-party-what-you-need-know

Nazis get to march in America. But I'm not going to come in hot telling Germany they gotta calm down about their Nazis.

And I'm CERTAINLY not going to say they'd better do it or it's "lamp post territory."

What a sorry excuse. You certainly have no standing to accuse others of supporting Hamas.

[Moderation4ever]

After President Trump's comments on how people will have to absorb some economic pains, my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, reports that planning continues for a military parade on the President's birthday. Where is DOGE when they are really needed.

[Speaking for normal people]

FIrst of all , The Greeks taught moderation even in moderation. Look it up. St Teresa famously said "there is a time for feasting and a time for fasting"

A military parade will cost you personally less than one penny
People like you want DOGE to not save money but to pester their personal political enemies. When we stop having parades and celebrating we might as well let the Nazis in. THe perfectly lackluster predictable grind is not Utopia.

To celebrate a festival means: to live out, for some special occasion and in an uncommon manner, the universal assent to the world as a whole.

Josef Pieper
An Anthology (ed. Ignatius Press

[Moderation4ever]

My wife has noted several times the only thing I don't do in moderation is moderation. My point is that a leader sets an example. Asking people to absorb economic pain should move a leader to do the same.

[Martinned]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I'm sure Trump will get right on that.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm reading that in Mandark's voice.

[Brett Bellmore]

I somehow expect that if Trump had declared that the 250th anniversary of the US Army's founding would be celebrated on some other day, because his birthday was already taken, you'd have declared THAT offensive, too.

Where there's no winning, there's no point in caring...

[Sarcastr0]

The point is your standard of what counts as waste is just what you like or don't like personally.
Which makes your act about the "debt crisis" even more of a joke.

[Moderation4ever]

No. I would have said that a military parade is a waste of money. If you are preaching austerity, then practice it also.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd love it if Trump preached austerity. I never took him to be doing that.

The talking point is that the parade is to celebrate his birthday. The reality is that the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army was going to be on that date, since long before Trump was born.

I'm pointing out that if he had the parade on some other day to avoid the coincidence, you'd still complain.

[Sarcastr0]

Your strawman may be 'the talking point' but it is not what anyone here is arguing.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but it is not what anyone here is arguing."

Maybe try lies like that when the evidence isn't a half second scrolling away?

"Moderation4ever 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User

After President Trump's comments on how people will have to absorb some economic pains, my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, reports that planning continues for a military parade on the President's birthday. "

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the comment of his you replied to. Seems bad form to explain what the talking points are and talks only to them, when that directly contradicts what he said.

[David Nieporent]

The 250th anniversary of the army is a made up excuse for doing what Trump always wanted to do, because he envies caudillos and Putin and wants a parade in his honor too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, and it's not like anybody would have planned on celebrating something ridiculous like a 250's anniversary. Those usually pass unnoticed... [/sarc]

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of people planned lots of things, and they all got spiked in the stupid cut everything performative bullshittery.

You are defending this as already planned? Did you note the scale of the celebration Trump wants?

You've really got no standards other than Trump can do no wrong.

[ThePublius]

"a military parade on the President's birthday"

Jerk.

[Martinned2]

You should deport Moderation4ever to El Salvador for being such a meanie!

[Commenter_XY]

Well...if you insist. /sarc

[Sarcastr0]

You really are an easily offended snowflake of an authoritarian asshole.

[Area Man]

I just had an interesting thought on another thread. As many people have been reminding us in the deportation cases, the Due Process Clauses apply to all persons, not just citizens. The Second Amendment is incorporated through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Put all the history aside, as purely a matter of plain meaning, does that mean non-citizens have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? It’s generally thought that they don’t. But, at least against state governments—since the 14th Amendment applies against the states—why not?

[hobie]

"An alien legally in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit.

[18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(5), (g)(5) and (y)(2); 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.32(a)(5) ]"

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms

[Area Man]

That doesn’t speak to whether the right is constitutionally protected or not.

[hobie]

True

[Martinned]

Because, like all other US constitutional rights, the 2nd amendment isn't as black and white as it seems. (And it already seems pretty grey, given that non-citizens may not belong to the militia.)

[ThePublius]

Wrong. "In the U.S., non-citizens can be members of the militia, but their membership is limited and requires specific qualifications. Specifically, they must be able-bodied males between 17 and 45 who have declared their intention to become citizens."

[Martinned2]

You will note that I said "may", as in: the question was uncertain. And your quote suggests the vast majority of non-citizens are not members of the militia, because they are not men, the wrong age, or have no (current) intention to become a citizen.

[Brett Bellmore]

The 2nd amendment, despite Court insanity, is actually incorporated by way of the P&I clause. On that I and Thomas agree. I don't see any good reason to humor a mistake.

As a matter of logic, granting the mistake as legitimate, yes, they would. The judiciary only pretend to follow logic most of the time.

[Area Man]

I agree that the P or I Clause is the correct method of incorporation. But that’s not currently how the Supreme Court does it. Under the current method, non-citizens should have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's right, but the Court won't rule that, because they're perfectly aware that substantive due process is a joke the Court came up with to start incorporation 86 years late without reversing Slaughterhouse.

Which they weren't willing to do because Slaugherhouse was an economic liberties case, and reversing it would be Lochnerism! Idiots.

[hobie]

79 year old Haim Bresheeth, a Jew and holocaust survivor was arrested in London for protesting what he believes is brutality in Gaza. Under the UK's Terrorism Act, he was arrested for speaking about a proscribed organization

[Martinned]

At least this morning the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court in striking down the (previous) government's expansive reading of the Public Order Act to allow it to shut down an eye-wateringly wide range of protest. So it's not all bad in London.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Liberty-v-Secretary-of-State-for-the-Home-Department.pdf

[ThePublius]

B.S. At 79 he would have been born in 1946. The holocaust was over by then.

[apedad]

Good catch.

Here's the actual background.

The 79-year-old Bresheeth, a Jewish Israeli who has lived mostly in London since the 1970s, is an outspoken critic of Zionism and Israel and a supporter of Palestinian rights. He is the son of Holocaust survivors and a founder of the Jewish Network for Palestine.

[hobie]

Publius always needs a squirrel to shout about, rather than confront an uncomfortable situation

[Commenter_XY]

I think The Publius punctured the BS balloon with his comment.

[Don Nico]

Even Jews can be duped by Palestinian propaganda

[SRG2]

Trump decides that only the US won both World Wars:
Trump renames VE Day ignoring European contribution to victory

Symbolic behaviour is important to fascists. To everyone else, not so much, This is an instance of moronic chauvinism.

[Martinned]

Did he forget the part where the US turned up late both times?

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like the US showed up just in time, twice or you'd be speaking German.

[Martinned2]

We already are. It's not our fault that somewhere in the Middle Ages the North of Germany got its language screwed up by the South.

[tylertusta]

He's probably thinking about how the US had to bail you out of the trouble you got yourself into both times.

[Martinned2]

That seems unlikely, given that on most days Trump probably thinks that the Nazi's were the good guys.

[ThePublius]

Get lost Martinned, that's just mindless TDS.

[David Nieporent]

Come on, Martinned; Trump doesn't think the Nazis were the good guys. There's just no basis for that claim. He thinks they're very fine people.

[Jerry B.]

But then, so are the people on the other side.

[ThePublius]

Turned up late? It wasn't our war, knucklehead!

Plus, the U.S. contributed a lot before officially join both wars, in terms of war materiel and volunteers. Lend lease? Ever heard of it?

We pulled your chestnuts out of the fire, you should be grateful. Did you think the French were going to expel the Germans from the Netherlands?

My father and all of my uncles fought in WWII. If you guys got overrun again, perhaps by the Russians, I would discourage my kids from helping, and beseech my government to stay out of it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Likewise here: Dad spent WWII in England repairing bombers. One uncle had two ships sunk out from under him in the South Pacific. Almost all my male relatives from that era were serving in the military. Heck, some of my female relatives were, as nurses!

We didn't start either of those wars, which is why we didn't come in on the start. We helped stop them.

[hobie]

Interesting. My dad stormed Normandy. Got shot in the stomach. Never recall him bragging about it or grousing about gratitude. You, on the other hand, Publius, are sounding more and more like Trump every day. I don't consider stopping the Nazi conquest of the western world to be a transactional thing...nor did my dad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, Dad didn't talk about it much, either.

My uncle, OTOH, would occasionally talk about it, because, like I said, he had two ships sink under him, which gave him a reputation as a jinx, but at least made for a good story.

[Don Nico]

If the US did not turn up, the Germans and friends would have prevailed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course if Wilson had kept us out of WWI the "peace" would probably looked totally different and there probably would not have been a WWII.

[gVOR08]

Renaming VE Day. Is there anything so trivial Trump won't screw it up?

[hobie]

What a perversion and a slap to everyone who died

[MoreCurious]

Trump gets stupider every day. VE Day stands for Victory in Europe Day just as VJ Day stands for Victory over Japan Day. What possible reason could the moron have to want to change those long-accepted usages? It's a little unnerving to realize that this imbecile is in charge of anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Labour taking a drubbing in the off-elections.

Can't say they haven't been asking for it.

[Martinned]

Tories too (2x)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/may/02/local-elections-polls-labour-tories-reform-council-mayor-uk-politics-live-news

[Martinned]

I wonder why people keep thinking that Trumpism is a cult?

https://bsky.app/profile/pbump.com/post/3lo6v3f2jv226

[Martinned]

Reuters has some reporting on the latest Tesla sales figures. Good think Musk is about to go back to being full-time (well, one day a week) Tesla CEO: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/teslas-sales-key-european-markets-plunge-april-2025-05-02/

Tesla's (TSLA.O) sales plunged across Europe in April, including an 81% drop in Sweden to their lowest level in 2-1/2 years, data showed on Friday, as Europeans buy more Chinese EVs and some protest against CEO Elon Musk's political views.
The automaker's sales have dropped for four straight months across much of Europe. For the first quarter, sales of all fully-electric cars rose 28% in Europe while Tesla's sales slumped 37.2%.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Europeans buy more Chinese EVs and some protest against CEO Elon Musk's political views."

No protest about Chinese political views. On brand for Europe.

[Martinned2]

At least they don't come here and lecture us to explain we're doing freedom wrong.

[Commenter_XY]

Truth hurts.

[William of Brooklyn]

Yes, imagine the nerve of footing the bill for Europe's security for 70 years, and then daring to question them about, well, anything...

[hobie]

Looks like you missed the point of the comment, Bob

[Martinned]

In other money/econ news:

Payrolls grew a relatively uninteresting (and positive!) +177k in April, and unemployment was unchanged at 4.2%.

This economy is still humming along.

NOTE: This is a reading largely from the pre-tariff period. Still very foggy about what lies ahead.

[Martinned]

By the way, when the BLS used to do this under Biden it was because those evil Democrats had rigged the stats:

Revisions were somewhat worrying: March was revised down -43k to +185k. Feb down -15k to +102k.

[dwb68]

I look at the kids graduating college today, see what jobs they are getting, even those with specialized science degrees, and think the payoff isnt worth it. College is overpriced now, even for stem degrees I think.

But I also blame public high schools. In Maryland more than half of HS grads who move to college need remedial math and english. Parents are paying twice to teach their kids english and algebra.

[apedad]

I get a little twinge when I read, "I look at the kids (issue) today and (negative opinion).

Every preceeding generation says this.

[Brett Bellmore]

Diminishing returns. When I went to college in the 70's most people didn't go to college. The payoff was worth it because they weren't educating more people than were needed for jobs that REQUIRED that level of education, so if you graduated you would find a relevant job.

AND because a college education was generally pay as you go, with your own money, maybe supplemented by your parents. So you had a very strong incentive to only pursue a degree that would pay off.

Today far too many people are getting college educations for the job market, and the students are deliberately insulated from the costs until after they leave college, discouraging economically rational decisions.

[ducksalad]

That second paragraph is it. Third-party payment systems inevitably lead to high prices and purchases of unnecessary goods and services.

Health care and education already ruined, and quite a bit of damage to housing. What can we work on next?

[ducksalad]

I look at the kids graduating college today, see what jobs they are getting, even those with specialized science degrees

Looking at our BSEE seniors graduating this May, the offers range from $70K for one who wanted to stay close to home and be allowed to work some days remotely, to $140K for a guy willing to to take an engineering job on an offshore rig.

College is overpriced now, even for stem degrees I think.

Their tuition and fees were under $10K/year, or $40K for the whole degree. Of course due to various subsidies and grants most paid *much* less than that directly. Basically our price setting algorithm is the same as Medicaid doctors - "How much will the government give you? That's the price."

But I also blame public high schools. In Maryland more than half of HS grads who move to college need remedial math and english.

A fair complaint but why blame just the high schools. They get fed underprepared students from the middle schools. Colleges contribute to the rot by accepting what the high schools produce.

Parents are paying twice to teach their kids english and algebra.

More correctly, taxpayers are paying twice. Taxpayers include businesses, single people, and the childless, all of whom subsidize parents.

[dwb68]

10K/year, or $40K is a tremendous value; if you are majoring in engineering, computer science, or accounting!

[ducksalad]

We're at the low end of the price scale (and proud of it) but lots of states run systems at similar prices. But the real reason it's affordable is it's a commuter school and students live with their parents or spouses.

What's expensive is going off to live in some high-priced city on one of the coasts to be "independent" and having to pay people for all your meals and services.

[ThePublius]

"Who Are the Maudes, and Why Did Biden Try to Ruin Their Lives?"

Have any of you ever heard this story? As far as I know, the 'mainstream media' isn't covering. But it's quite astounding. Government thugs abusing ranchers who have been working the land for over 100 years, and indicting them over the position of a fence that was built 70 years ago. "...something that should have been a minor civil land dispute that was over and done with quickly turned into an overzealous criminal prosecution on a hardworking family that was close to losing their home, children, and livelihood."

Good riddance Joe Biden and his corrupt administration.

https://pjmedia.com/sarah-anderson/2025/05/01/who-are-the-maudes-and-what-did-biden-do-to-them-n4939406

[jb]

Is your theory that Biden was personally masterminding this land dispute and sending Forest Service agents to harass this family?

Do you think if we tried really hard we could find some government agency that was abusing citizens under the previous Trump administration over some issue that might look minor or petty? Would you use that example to draw conclusions about the administration more generally?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is it your theory that Hitler personally threw every Jew into the gas chamber?

[jb]

No, but he definitely was an important part of coming up with the plan to do so.

I'm pretty curious what part of this land dispute and over-policing has anything to do with something Biden did.

[ThePublius]

Where, exactly, does the buck stop?

[ThePublius]

And I said "Joe Biden and his corrupt administration." I don't really think Biden did anything here. I don't think he was compos mentis for his entire presidency. Others were pulling his strings. But, as POTUS, he is ultimately responsible.

[hobie]

They can't seem to get their Biden fiction straight. One day he's a potato, the next he's micromanaging land disputes

[ThePublius]

Well, what was he hobie?

[Sarcastr0]

I hear he was eating everyone's pets!
Or am I confusing the fictions further...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Be helpful if they condensed things some.

Cutting to the chase, it involves some property dispute, with a bit of talk about excessive government force. This involved what was "possible," not what they would have likely been sentenced with if the prosecution had been successful.

If one wants to be "angry" about such things, people on various sides of the ideological line (including Black Lives Matter) can find examples of that.

The idea that there is something unique to the "corrupt Biden Administration" over such things can be refuted by various libertarian sources that collect things to be angry about over the years.

And, "overcriminalization" is not going to be consistently a concern of the Trump Administration. This was addressed in the past by people here. Trump is not a libertarian. Also, if "political motivation" is a concern, well, suffice it to say that isn't verboten these days.

Anyways, since many of the hits will be to pieces framed in a particular direction, here is another view:

https://capitalpress.com/2024/08/28/feds-deny-jumping-gun-with-criminal-charges-against-ranch-couple-in-land-dispute/

[ThePublius]

"Cutting to the chase, it involves some property dispute, with a bit of talk about excessive government force. "

So, showing up at someone's place in SWAT gear and indicting them on charges that could lead to 10 years in prison, for a case that should have been settled civilly, is 'a bit of talk about excessive government force?' Give me a break.

The fence had been there for 70 years! Did you even read the article?

[hobie]

Until the Nakba, Palestinians had been living in Palestine for centuries. So what's your point?

[David Nieporent]

That's really not true, not that it has anything to do with this discussion.

[ThePublius]

My point is exactly what I said. It has nothing to do with your stupid "what about Palestinians." What don't you understand about what I said?

I know you just want to counter anything and everything perceived Trump "cultists" have to say. It's tiring, and has gotten old.

[Don Nico]

You do understand that the word Nakba originally referred to the gross error made by the Arabs in going to war. Palestinian propaganda has not translated it into a crime committed by the Jews

[William of Brooklyn]

Exactly. Given a nation which they had never had historically, and turned it down. Then went to war repeatedly, and repeatedly losing, so that -- like Germany before WWI to after WWII -- their territory diminished dramatically. One strategic error after another, whereas if they made peace, the whole world would finance the rebuilding of their society. Germany's much smaller today, but richer, better in every way, and peaceful, and (in relative terms) free.

[rloquitur]

What should happen--first, those responsible for the prosecution should be disbarred and charged with whatever crime can be found. And the judge, for letting that shit go on and on should be pilloried as a terrible judge.

[John F. Carr]

I remember seeing a Western land dispute case a long time ago where the federal government had a criminal trespass case tossed as "abuse of process." The government isn't supposed to criminally prosecute when there is a good faith dispute over boundary or ownership. The proper remedy is a civil action. I do not know if the facts of the present case would support an abuse of process defense.

[Stephen Lathrop]

John F. Carr — This seems to be another instance among many of the same sort—western ranchers not too careful about what they own, and what the government owns. The result looks typical too—an outpouring of local press lauding the hard work and virtuous character of the ranchers, but short on accurate detail about what happened. All that falls right in the tradition of the so-called, "Sagebrush Rebellion."

Here is an alternative account:

Various online accounts of the South Dakota land dispute characterize the Forest Service as suddenly and unexpectedly sending armed agents in tactical gear to charge the Maudes as they tried to resolve the dispute administratively for several months. In an emailed response to questions about the case, however, the agency claims it originally notified the couple nearly four years ago that their plan to install an irrigation system would require trespassing onto the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. “Subsequently, the Forest Service observed crops had been planted and an irrigation system installed on National Forest System land without authorization, despite the Maudes having been informed that they were trespassing,” the agency said. Contrary to allegations the indictments disrupted civil proceedings, the agency claims that it’d only referred the case to the U.S. Department of Justice after it was “unable to resolve the matter through administrative means.”

Read more at: https://capitalpress.com/2024/08/28/feds-deny-jumping-gun-with-criminal-charges-against-ranch-couple-in-land-dispute/

When you read more, you discover some of what is alleged in comments above is at least contradicted. Prior experience with researching and writing on similar disputes biases my judgment toward skepticism about the accuracy of the pro-Maude comments above—not that I think any of those making the comments tried in the least to corroborate them.

I see this story as likely a case where an ambitious nice-guy sort of western landowner decided on purpose to squat/appropriate about 50 (not 25) acres of federal land, got caught doing it, and now has a probably lawless go-ahead from the Trump administration to get away with it.

I would need more substantive detail about the history of the dispute, the land survey which was made, the timeline, and government conduct, to be certain which account is closer to right. I reserve judgment on the legal and policy questions, while asserting a personal privilege to place bets against the accuracy of the accounts supporting the Maudes.

[Longtobefree]

The first thing to note is that the family is (lower case) white.

[hobie]

So you don't like overzealous prosecutions, eh?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I enjoyed the movie Conclave.

One thing raised was the importance of some doubt. Being too sure you are correct was cited as a barrier to compromise and unity. And to be fair to the context, faith.

This theme also arose in a young adult novel entitled Converting Kate about a teenager leaving a conservative religious sect and dealing with other issues. She likes a verse from one of Trump's favorite biblical books.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

The chapter also honors love (sometimes translated "charity"):

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Paul is not a big one for doubt. He was often quite sure of himself and critical about opposing points of view.

Christianity thrived partially because it suppressed opposition. Pagans were more open to various types of belief. Within certain limits. Christians saw one path to nirvana.

Maybe it is telling that my middle name is "Paul." Still, I do try to leave in some doubt. And, sometimes, "childish things" are not too bad either. Those little devils have some good qualities.

[Sarcastr0]

I found the movie to be about the interplay between doubt and certainty as well as ambition and humility.

Humble certainty won out over the other candidates, each of which stood for different combinations:
Certainty and ambition
Pure ambition
Doubt and humility
Doubt and ambtition

I don't recall the names but I think it's not too hard to match each with each.
This analysis doesn't have a great spot for the Nigerian candidate, though. He might have been my favorite performance, with his emotional swings feeling true to human nature.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There was a reference to the Nigerian's position on certain social issues that raised concerns about certainty.

His downfall was more human failing and the needs of the institution. I agree the actor had a very good performance & unlike the other main characters (including the conservative who I saw in the film Mostly Martha), I am not familiar with him.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

(Sorry if that is something of a spoiler)

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think the movie came down on one side or the other of any of those continua - they all have their appeal to the College.

The doubt speech was a banger, full of appeal. It got the protagonist some support.
The certainty speech got someone to be Pope. But that wasn't presented as a sure thing. And that guy was so certain the whole time. Not sure how I felt about that, actually.

Humility was appealing, but the humble candidates sure weren't having any fun. It did win out in the end.
One item of note was that humility couldn't be faked; ambition will out in a pressure cooker like that.

I know a lot of folks liked the final twist; I enjoyed it in the moment, but it went flat pretty quick for me.

[Don Nico]

Along this line
I'd recommend the film "The Two Popes" with Anthony Hopkins as Ratzinger and Jonathan Pryce as Bergoglio.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The final twist fits into the wider theme here since it adds to the no easy answer thing. It is one of those dramatic moments that adds spice to something. It isn't even necessary for the plot. I can imagine some other surprise they could have used. It didn't go flat for me but that's a matter of taste.

BTW, I also enjoyed The Vicar of Christ (book) written by Alito's thesis advisor. Alito wrote a foreword to one edition. I do think the last section went on too long.

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

The elected Pope being a tranny? You enjoyed that part too?

[SRG2]

An old one of mine:

Trump: is this the editor of Pravda?
Editor: yes
Trump: this is president Trump.
Editor: we know.
Trump: I have a favor to ask
Editor: go ahead.
Trump: have you decided on your Man of the Year yet?
Editor: why?
Trump: it would be a huge gesture if you made me your Man of the Year.
Editor: why are you asking?
Trump: because the American fake news media won't make me Man of the Year, and I deserve it.
Editor: President Trump, we'd love to make you Man of the Year
Trump: that would be huge!
Editor: except we've already decided. It's Vladimir Putin.
Trump: wasn't he Man of the Year last year?
Editor: yes. And the year before. And next year. So no, you can't be Man of the Year.
Trump: well, I have learned something new today.
Editor: what have you learned?
Trump: I learned that I wished the US media were more like Pravda.

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

You left off the:
>FWD:FWD:fwd:FWD:fwd
SRG,
I saw this on Facebook.

Love,
Grammy

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that responding to a fake ad selling sexual services, choosing from the menu of services, and going to the undercover officer's chosen place to get arrested is not sex trafficking. Under Massachusetts law the court can review the evidence presented to the grand jury to see if it establishes probable cause. When all the defendant does is respond to the (alleged) sex worker's offer of services the crime is merely sex for hire, not sex trafficking.

A lesson there both for buyers of sex and for state police officers running sting operations.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/05/02/r13652.pdf

The court rejected the defendant's argument that there is no crime with no victim. Factual impossibility is not a defense here. Hiring a police officer pretending to be a sex worker is the same crime as hiring a real sex worker.

I thought this case was interesting because the sex trafficking crime is very, very broad. The court had to dive into legislative history to come up with a win for the defense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't understand why the police aren't criminally liable for advertising the sex services. Or why this isn't entrapment -- it's a crime that wouldn't have happened but for the police.

[John F. Carr]

Police don't intend to follow through on the deal. There are some crimes where the offer itself is illegal. I don't know what doctrine protects police from liability for those crimes.

A long history of case law says setting a trap is not the same as entrapment. I'm not arguing right or wrong here. It's what the courts have decided. If police leave a bait car and you steal it, you are a car thief. If your friend who is an undercover cop suggests stealing a car, you might have an entrapment defense. Entrapment is an affirmative defense. Once there is some evidence of active soliciation by the government the jury decides whether you were entrapped.

[David Nieporent]

Because that's not what entrapment means. The defendant has to show that he wasn't willing to commit the crime without govt pressure, not merely that the govt supplied the opportunity.

[ReaderY]

On the Texas habeas case, I think it was correct for Judge Rodriguez to first look at the terms of the Presidential Proclamation and ask if the facts stated in it conformed to the grant of authority in the Alien Enwmies Act without inquiring whether those facts were true. This is analogous to general procedure in court cases, in which the court first looks at the complaint and decides whether it alleges a cause of action, and only then decides whether the alleged facts are true.

Judge Rodriguez went further and said that judges can’t independently review the facts proclaimed in an AEA proclamation and independently assess their truth. However, as the proclamation in effect failed at the analog of a motion to dismiss stage, it was unnecessary to review the facts in this particular case. So I think lawyers for future habeas petitioners are free to argue that Judge Rodriguez’s opinion that judges can’t reassess proclaimed facts is dicta and has no precedential value.

That said, I think future petitioners would be wise to learn a lesson from and adapt to Judge Rodriguez’s basic approach, which I think is sound. They should first allege that the proclaimed facts do not invoke AEA authority even if they are all true. Only after doing that should they then argue that the facts proclaimed are not true.

[SRG2]

I wonder how that approach works with a previous hypothetical of mine. The Executive alleges that an applicant for naturalisation lied on their application and hence procured the naturalisation by fraud. The Executive then (purportedly) denaturalises the citizen and attempts to deport the now ex-citizen. Can the judge assess proclaimed facts? The answer here must surely be, yes, but I doubt everyone would agree.

(One of the idiot cultists on the main Reason page kept asking, "why would the Executive do that?" -while refusing to address the actual point of the hypothetical - a concession by implication.)

[ReaderY]

It’s a little bit harder to come up with a hypothetical, but I think it could potentially have application. Here’s a try:

Suppose there was a materiality requirement, as is common in fraud claims, and the Executive alleged a completely trivial, immaterial misstatement as the fraud.

Then the judge could say that even if what the Executive is saying is true, it is immaterial, and hence is insufficient to support denaturalization, without having to evaluate the truth of the statements. Only after a finding that the Executive’s allegations are legally sufficient to invalidate citizenship would their actual truth become relevant.

[David Nieporent]

So I think lawyers for future habeas petitioners are free to argue that Judge Rodriguez’s opinion that judges can’t reassess proclaimed facts is dicta and has no precedential value.

Um, it's a district court ruling. It never has any precedential value. (It can be persuasive or not, but that's irrelevant to whether it's dicta.)

[William of Brooklyn]

Innocent question: I understand that District Court rulings do not constitute "precedent" in the same sense that we mean when discussing the Supreme Court. But don't the body of such rulings constitute the Common Law?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

May 1st has many names.

For some, it's May Day. Or Law Day. Or (in their hearts) Victims of Communism Day.

For some, it is that National Day of Prayer. Congress dictated:

The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/119

Congress shouldn't do that. They shouldn't require a proclamation designating days to honor specific supernatural beings in a certain religious fashion. That sort of thing was somewhat controversial even when John Adams did it.

[TJJ2000]

REPEALING E.O. Tariffs since it's the BIG media topic currently.

Just one of thousands of UN-Constitutional laws (treasonous) that Democrats have put there.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you smell toast?

[Martinned2]

It looks like Poilievre has found a safe seat in Alberta where he can run, far far away from Ottawa: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/alberta-mp-damien-kurek-stepping-down-for-poilievre-to-run-in-byelection

[Zarniwoop]

Yikes! A client just forwarded this to me. It has a trigger warning for lawyers at the start it's so cringe-inducing. DOJ lawyer mistakenly files internal client letter with objective case analysis explaining why their case sucks/why they will lose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsnr9yNEh7c

(The case itself is about Trump's attempt to stop congestion pricing in NYC, but in the end that's not even really the point.)

[hobie]

Nothing will ever top Alex Jones' lawyers producing an entire forensic copy of his cell phone

[Zarniwoop]

He mentions that a possible contender for worst screw-up evah.

[David Nieporent]

And of course Trumpland had a tantrum, decided it was a deliberate attempt to sabotage Trump, and yanked the case away from the lawyers who wrote that. (I believe they threatened to fire those attorneys entirely, but I don't know what's the situation there.)

[Zarniwoop]

Yoinked the case from the person(s) who wrote the memo, or the person who uploaded it to PACER?

I'd fire an attorney who didn't provide unvarnished, warts-and-all legal analysis in a purely internal, atty-client privileged memo.

The uploading is "expect to get fired" bad.

But between "give client solid advice in a privileged context" and "upload privileged advice to PACER", only one of those is holy-shit-bad malpractice.

[Sarcastr0]

Insufficient one-sided fervent belief is a firing office for a federal attorney these days.

[David Nieporent]

Yoinked the case from the person(s) who wrote the memo, or the person who uploaded it to PACER?

The person who uploaded it. And yeah, that was a really bad screwup, but there's not even a microscope iota of a reason to think it was a deliberate attempt to screw the Trump administration. And yet that was the charge leveled by MAGA.

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks for the update. I'm not so far down the GQP rabbit hole that I know those details.

Who was the person who uploaded/got fired?

[David Nieporent]

I don't remember the name off the top of my head (and don't care to invest even the 30 seconds to google it), but it was a lawyer in SDNY, which was handling the case (not surprisingly, since it involves congestion pricing in Manhattan) until this screwup.

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

I'm sure that was totally an oopsie and not a Sarcastr0 La' Resistance! type move.

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

Can this piece of shit Kenjati "Bone Thrower" get any more vile?

>“The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law,” Jackson said.

That piece of shit didn't say a word when the Left were attacking conservative justices.

Democrats, no matter top or bottom, are always subhuman garbage. She needs to recuse herself from any Trump related case. She won't. But she needs to.

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

Of course, this is how the Left is spinning her vile, norm-breaking, democracy harming comments:

Supreme Court Justice Gets Standing Ovation for Breaking Cover to Attack Trump

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-justice-gets-standing-ovation-for-breaking-cover-to-attack-trump/

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

Good news, Open Border's types.

Standing now is irrelevant. All that matters is if an illegal desires a particular outcome, a Democrat judge will just make shit up to enable it.

e.g.
https://thepostmillennial.com/new-jersey-judge-moves-mahmoud-khalils-deportation-out-of-immigration-court-and-into-federal-court

>A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled that Palestinian activist and foreign national Mahmoud Khalil will be able to fight his immigration case in federal court instead of an immigration court. The judge argued that immigration courts are not set up to provide the ruling that Khalil is seeking, namely that his deportation order from the Secretary of State be vacated.

Well fuck it, whatever these foreigners want!! We have to bend in service of them.

[tylertusta]

These kinds of shenanigans are why Congress divested Article III courts of jurisdiction over most immigration matters a while ago.

I don't yet know if the judge is allowed to yoink this case out of Article II courts' like this, but I won't be surprised if at the end we find out that the district court judge didn't have the authority to do this.

[David Nieporent]

I don't yet know if the judge is allowed to yoink this case out of Article II courts' like this,

…but that won't stop you from whining about it.

[rloquitur]

Khalil needs to go. Get him under oath.

[Commenter_XY]

Khalil the hamas supporter needs to go, deport him.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Too bad we didn’t deport Rubio in 2000 whe he supported the Cuban kidnappers of Elian Gonzalez over the Federal courts…Clinton should have deported all of the Cubans that weren’t citizens yet at that time that supported a family in their community being above the law. That’s exactly what America should be doing—giving certain immigrant communities special privileges over even Americans because they vote Republican in a swing state.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when you supported the kidnappers of an illegal immigrant Cuban boy over his father?? That was weird, right??

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

Are you Methuselah? Your references are from the dark ages.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Rubio said it was one of the defining moments in his life….he’s relevant now.

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

Holy cow, we found the person who bought his book.

lmao, what are you his Dad? You're like the only person who listened to what that dipshit has been saying before now.

[David Nieporent]

Standing now is irrelevant. All that matters is if an illegal desires a particular outcome, a Democrat judge will just make shit up to enable it.

What on earth are you talking about? You think an immigrant lacks standing to challenge his own deportation? He might lose on the merits, but on standing?

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

Gentle Reminder to the Patriots:

Shiloh Hendrix could use your support. She's on givesendgo.

[ThePublius]

Gonna make a meatball parmesan sub tonight. Have never done this at home. Using store-bought (high end) meatballs, which require baking, my favorite jarred Italian sauce (Classico), some deli provolone I have in the fridge, some grated Parmesan Reggiano ( I have a block), and some nice French bread.

Any ideas? What am I missing? Maybe mozzarella? What spices? Herbs?

[rloquitur]

Use Rao's instead.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Gfy!

[ThePublius]

I haven't tried that brand yet. But I have several jars of Classico on hand, of different varieties.

[Commenter_XY]

So....sounds like you have a nice dinner tonight. I would consider a TBSP of oregano, thyme and basil. Fresh if you can.

[ThePublius]

Yes, I grow herbs. But I was tempted to just use my dried Italian herb mix (in a grinder).

[Commenter_XY]

Fresh is better, if only for the antioxidants.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fry the meatballs in a pan, don't bake them.

[ThePublius]

Ah, too late! They are in the oven. I usually fry them, this is the first time I've baked them.

[rloquitur]

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2025/05/02/florida-attorney-general-to-defy-judges-order-to-halt-enforcement-of-florida-immigration-law-n2188621

Here comes a war. The Florida AG should tell this judge to eff off.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I wish Reno had gone Waco on that dumbass Cuban family that kidnapped Elian Gonzalez…she should have lit them up!!

[Commenter_XY]

The FL AG did tell the judge to piss off. The AG is enforcing FL law, not woke BS.

[John F. Carr]

Bloomberg Law reports a settlement in the death of Ashli Babbit:

The US government has reached a settlement in principal with the estate of Ashli Babbitt, a protester who was shot and killed by a police officer while she was trying to force her way into the chambers of the House of Representatives during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Lawyers for the Justice Department and Babbitt’s estate revealed the agreement during a hearing Friday in Washington. The lawyers didn’t disclose the amount of the payment and said a final settlement hasn’t yet been signed.

[Mr. Bumble]

I wonder if that gets Byrd off the hook for a civil action?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Don’t shed any tears for her badass Marine husband, he had a spare hottie just in case Ashtray got Darwinned out of existence. 😉

[John F. Carr]

As a government employee doing his job, well or badly, he should be protected by the Westfall Act.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Stop the ste!

The last words of Ashtray Babbitt that will inspire a new generation of patriots. Gee, I wonder what she meant by “ste”?? 😉

[Estragon]

MAGA’s Horst Wessel. My condolences to this poor deluded woman’s family. That said, any money paid is an outrage. Which is the point.

[David Nieporent]

Yes; this is just Trump raiding the public's treasury to reward his political friends (waste, fraud, and abuse, all wrapped up into one!)

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that President Trump is once again calling for Harvard to lose its tax exempt status. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/02/us/trump-news?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250502&instance_id=153757&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=197184&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f#trump-harvard-tax-exempt-status

The article states:

President Trump said on Friday that Harvard would lose its tax-exempt status, repeating his intent to enlist the Internal Revenue Service in his feud with the wealthy research university and upend the school’s finances.

“We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!” Mr. Trump wrote on social media.

It was not immediately clear if the I.R.S. was in fact moving forward with revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a change that could typically occur only after a lengthy process. Federal law prohibits the president from directing the I.R.S. to conduct tax investigations, and I.R.S. employees who receive such a command are required to report it to an internal government watchdog.

Not that it matters to the current Congress, but Prick Nixon's weaponization of the IRS is among the misdeeds mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee and sent to the full House of Representatives in 1974. https://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment/

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Republicans no longer care about impeachment…it served their purpose to get Bush elected in 2000…dream big!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Presidential impeachment has been nothing but theater since Andrew Johnson.
Four impeachments, no convictions.

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

In Obama's articles of impeachment they didn't mention him weaponizing the IRS either.

Which is weird since he absolutely did that.

[John F. Carr]

If the IRS does revoke Harvard's status, will Trump's statements matter? There is a legitimate pretext (racial discrimination) with an illegitimate underlying motive (political stance). Employment discrimination has the McDonnell Douglas process to come to a decision in such cases. IRS appeals are presumably different.

[Sarcastr0]

a legitimate pretext

Wat

[David Nieporent]

Racial discrimination is not in fact a legitimate basis to revoke the tax exempt status. Bob Jones did not lose its tax exemption because it had discriminated in the past, but because it was continuing to do so.

[Commenter_XY]

Market meltdown....where are you?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/01/stock-market-today-live-updates.html

Stocks rose on Friday as Wall Street digested a better-than-expected nonfarm payrolls report for April, which eased recession fears and lifted the S&P 500 for its longest winning streak in just over two decades.

Where are the dumbasses who were confidently telling us the world was ending because of tariffs? Pathetic know nothings.

[Michael P]

The WSJ predicted it was going to be the worst April for the DJIA since 1932. That wasn't true, but it was the worst April since May 2024.

[TaioF920]

The media is an arm of Wall Street and the Democrat Party. Everything the banksters in the top 1% do is to convince the average American that the world will end if stocks drop. Despite the exaggeration about 60% of Americans being invested in the stock market, nearly all of the benefits of the stock market go to the top 1-5%, and they are causing inflation in many areas.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ruth Buzzi passed this morning at age 88.

[ThePublius]

R.I.P. She was funny.

Her bio is interesting:

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

[Commenter_XY]

Team D eats it's own young...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-fetterman-faces-new-spotlight-health-family-drama-sparking-online-uproar

What a sclerotic, dysfunctional party. See how they treat their own?

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

Someone was doing the smoke alarm battery chirps at some House committee while that Ghetto Princess Jasmine "YaaaaasssS Queen - with two snaps up" Crockett was peacocking and showboating today.

lmao. I bet Crockett has a disabled parking hang tag too. She's such entitled trash.

[Zarniwoop]

Soon to be a separate post by an official Conspirator, I'm sure:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-strikes-down-trump-order-against-law-firm-perkins-coie-2025-05-02/

Perkins Coie wins. Multiple Constitutional violations. Permanent injunction.

[Zarniwoop]

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10465366/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/pdf/

The opening:

No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, HENRY VI, PART 2, act 4, sc. 2, l. 75. When Shakespeare’s character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, see id. l. 74, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding “[a]way with him,” referring to an educated clerk, who “can make obligations and write court hand,” id. l. 90, 106. Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.

Nailed it.

[not guilty]

Hooray! The District Court memorandum opinion is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290.185.0_1.pdf

[SRG2]

It is an opinion for the ages.

[Estragon]

C_XY hit hardest

[Zarniwoop]

Oh c'mon there are other supporters of King Trmp that must be afflicted.

[ducksalad]

He's losing MTG?

“I represent the base and when I’m frustrated and upset over the direction of things, you better be clear, the base is not happy,” Greene said Friday in a lengthy post on the social platform X.
...
“I campaigned for no more foreign wars. And now we are supposedly on the verge of going to war with Iran,” Greene said, in reference to ongoing talks with Iran over its nuclear program.
...
“I don’t think we should be bombing foreign countries on behalf of other foreign countries especially when they have their own nuclear weapons and massive military strength,” Greene said.
...
She then turned to the minerals deal the U.S. signed with Ukraine this week...
“Why on earth would we go over and occupy Ukraine and spend an untold amount of future American taxpayer dollars defending and mining their minerals as well as potentially putting American lives at risk and future war?” Greene said. “Why don’t we just mine our own rare earth minerals that are tied up on federal lands that the government confiscated years ago?”