Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

If entomological predictions bear out, this spring Southeastern Massachusetts will witness the first full-strength double infestation in modern times of white sharks, and periodic cicadas. Persons there driven mad by incessant racket from the insects will have to think twice about seeking refuge in the water.

Of course the Gulf of Maine and the Cape Cod Region have since time immemorial been a part of the range for both the cicadas and the sharks, the latter were much reduced during the 19th and 20th century by fishermen's activity to cull seals, the sharks' natural prey.

Starting a few decades ago, seal populations began to rebound under protection, and shark population has lately surged in proportion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Slight technical error above. Only the Cape Cod/SE Massaschusetts region supported the cicadas. Most of the Gulf of Maine region seems not to have been part of their habitat. But beaches along the SE Massachusetts coast south of Boston are once again fully shark infested, along with the outer Cape region specifically.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And what is not being said is that the seals eat herring...

[Dr. Ed 2]

An interesting study on life expectancy with a glaring gap -- why do men die younger?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/life-expectancy-americans-us-south-study/

[Kazinski]

They marry younger wives that won't let them get enough rest.

Or so I've heard.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's true, younger wives don't let you get enough rest.

[Frank Drackman]

On to Cincinnati!

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

I miss the days when they were property.

[Speaking for normal people]

" the chapters de­fending the Founders from the charge of sexism. We learn there that, according to West, “almost all of the men and women of the founding generation believed that all men and women are created equal.” But as with blacks, we are mistaken if we believe that egalitarian implications must be drawn from such a claim, for the same Americans “rejected the inference that equal natural rights require equal voting rights.” West also shows that Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, and Wash­ington did not believe women to be “infe­rior,” but only limited in their ability to reason abstractly, and too physically and morally delicate to take an active role in worldly affairs. In the words of John Adams, “women are naturally ‘fittest for domestic cares” and “men are fittest for non-domestic activities like politics and war.”

IF Kamala had kids much of her stupidity would evaporate.

[Krayt]

In the words of John Adams, “women are naturally ‘fittest for domestic cares” and “men are fittest for non-domestic activities like politics and war.”

Yeah. Thanks for "helping".

It brings to mind Homer Simpson's observation, "Beer. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Abigail Adams gave birth to six children, three daughters and three sons, four of whom would live to adulthood. Women were liberated by technology -- the refrigerator, the microwave oven, the automobile not to mention indoor plumbing and central heating.

While we can take a shower in a minute or two, imagine having to pull the water up from a well by the bucketful, carry it inside to heat over the fireplace, and then pour it into a washbasin. That's going to be a couple of hours. We can nonchalantly go to work at "a mile a minute" (60 MPH) -- that wasn't possible until the mid 19th Century.

Merely preserving and preparing food was a full-time job back then.

But if you figure that a woman was pregnant for six months and nursing for 18 after that -- so 2 year per life birth (one of Abby's was stillborn) so she was occupied 10 1/2 years with children -- and even then, it wasn't like there was daycare or anything for older children.

[David Nieporent]

But if you figure that a woman was pregnant for six months

Give or take 50%, I suppose.

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

Back in the olden days babies were smaller and needed less time to cook.

[Krayt]

There was an old Bloom County, or maybe Outland, where Opus, Bill the Cat, and the two lads are sitting on a sofa outside, boys-only club. They complain about girls, all silly things.

Final panel cuts to a similar girls' club. "They always go about starting wars."

[Joe_dallas]

Why do married men die first?

Because they want to!

[Moderation4ever]

They easy answer is that men are not as tough as women. Men are built for the short haul and women for duration. I also think there is an aspect of social support among women that isn't as strong in men.

[Speaking for normal people]

We need only say that they are different and complementary to satisfy the most virulent feminist.

[Brett Bellmore]

The way I explained it to my son is, men are biologically "over-clocked", in order that we can execute our biological purpose of supporting and defending women in a competitive environment.

By contrast, women are "under-clocked", biologically they need to have a lot of excess operating margin during regular life in order to be able to support the metabolic demands of pregnancy. So in later life they can decline an awful lot before they exhaust that margin and fail.

So men are stronger, faster, tougher than women, but we just wear out faster.

But we're rapidly approaching a level of bio-technology where these biological limitations will be rendered obsolete, likely on both sides. Assuming people who are young today will experience the same biological trajectory as previous generations is probably mistaken.

In "The Immortalist", (Hard to believe it hasn't been republished!) Alan Harrington wrote, "The immortalist argument holds this ground and will not step back from it: that death from deterioration of the body is an outrage and should be unceremoniously treated as such. "Do not go gentle into that good night" does not apply here. Rather aim not to go at all; mobilize the scientists, spend the money, and hunt death down like an outlaw."

He didn't live long enough to see it happen, but that great hunt is underway.

[Sarcastr0]

Hard to say about women and endurance; a lot of the 'natural experiments' included a lot of social baggage about who gets to sacrifice.

And statistical trends may or may not apply to any given individual. Not saying I want trans folks in pro sports or anything, but people love to generalize a tendency to a baseline truth. Don't do that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Too many studies of athletic performance, Sarcastr0; The distributions of men and women in terms of strength, speed, and stamina may overlap a bit, but the peaks are quite distant from each other, and we can see fundamental biological reasons why, in terms of things like bone density and the unit performance of muscle fibers.

There are a few specific sports where men and women compete at parity, or women have a slight edge, but not many. And they're generally skill-centric sports where strength and speed don't count for a lot.

[Sarcastr0]

The distributions of men and women in terms of strength, speed, and stamina may overlap a bit, but the peaks are quite distant from each other

Change that 'but' to an 'even if' and we agree.

Generalization of statistical truth about groups to actual truth about individuals is a cognitive temptation, and it is wrong and bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed it is, and that would be one of the reasons I didn't do that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Billie Jean King won...

[Incunabulum]

A tendency *is* a baseline truth.

That there are deviations from the norm doesn't mean the norm doesn't exist. And we don't have to play games by prefacing every statement with 'there are, of course, exceptions'.

[Sarcastr0]

So when I said 'statistical trends may or may not apply to any given individual' what did you think I meant?

[Incunabulum]

Would be hard to explain why before the modern age that women died significantly younger.

It's not that women are 'built for endurance' it's that the vast majority of the benefits of mechanization have gone directly to women.

Men still work long hours in bad conditions - women got washing machines, electric stoves, vacuum cleaners, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Men still work long hours in bad conditions

This is quite a take.

[David Nieporent]

This is quite a take.

Well, it's the bizarre vision of the Trump team — witness Lutnick pining for (other) men and their sons to be trapped in terrible factory jobs for generations.

[Dr. Ed 2]

91.5% of job fatalities in 2023 were male.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's an accurate take, then.

Sure, most men don't work long hours in bad conditions today. But most of the people who DO work long hours in bad conditions are still men.

But if you're talking actuary tables, the relevant conditions wouldn't be today, but decades ago. If working in a foundry shaved a few years off my life, or maybe the exposure to manure dust that left me with a "fungus ball" in my lung, that happened fifty years ago, not last year.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, most men don't work long hours in bad conditions today. But most of the people who DO work long hours in bad conditions are still men.

Do you see how that's not relevant to the statistic about death rates that Incunabulum is citing?

[Kazinski]

Seems like an accurate take.

"Over the 25‐year study period, male injury and fatality rates were consistently higher than females. Occupational fatality rates for males were more than nine times higher than female rates"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11856517/

[Sarcastr0]

Incunabulum:

"Would be hard to explain why before the modern age that women died significantly younger.

It's not that women are 'built for endurance' it's that the vast majority of the benefits of mechanization have gone directly to women."

How is what you shared supportive of that take?

[bernard11]

Would be hard to explain why before the modern age that women died significantly younger.

There's this thing called "childbirth."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's not remotely hard to explain. Like I said above, women have to have a lot more reserve capacity than men in order to survive pregnancy, the metabolic demands of which are enormous.

Men can afford to normally run closer to our biological margins, because we don't need the reserves to survive that sort of thing. So we wear ourselves out earlier than women, and then when our capacity declines, wham, no margin left.

Even after you adjust for size and activity levels, women have about a 23% lower metabolic rate than men. Men are just running hotter, and wear out faster.

[Sarcastr0]

You here are generalizing statistics to hard truths about men and women. To the point of positing biological causes.

This is not what statistics allow.

[Brett Bellmore]

Man, you are pretty desperate to deny actual biological differences, aren't you?

[Sarcastr0]

Trend first, then hypo the cause? That's narrative not biology, Brett!

I don't like just so stories. Mostly because of how tempting they are.

Your posited pregnancy-as-cause-for-lifespan, and "Men can afford to normally run closer to our biological margins" are both just-so stories.

Even after you adjust for size and activity levels, women have about a 23% lower metabolic rate than men.
Average being confused for baseline.

Come on man, you were trained better than this!!

Lots of ways men and women are different; lots of trash science claiming nonsense about that as well.

[Don Nico]

BTW, it was Bernard not Brett that mentioned childbirth. Do you deny thata large number of women died in childbirth prior to the 20th century. You call it a "just-so story?"

[bernard11]

a large number of women died in childbirth prior to the 20th century.

Yes. That was my point.

Another might be that men fought in wars and, if they weren't killed in the war, may have suffered injuries or deprivations that shortened their lifespan, though without some data this is just speculation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A surprising number of women caught on fire tending food over an open hearth, or fell down stairs.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"A surprising number of women caught on fire tending food over an open hearth, or fell down stairs [or were hanged as witches].
In other words, Dr. Ed's America's Golden Age.
Dr. Ed likely still thinks Bridget Bishop was righteously executed. For, well something.

[bernard11]

WTF?

[Dr. Ed 2]

More refrigeration.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Society supports women but not men.

[Frank Drackman]

They have Peni

[Bob from Ohio]

"why do men die younger?"

To get away from women.

[AT]

At what point is anyone on the left going to admit that going to bat for Killmore Alfredo Tequila was the wrong choice?

Seriously. I want just ONE SINGLE PERSON at Reason to cop to that. Just admit that you were wrong.

Just. ONE.

Anyone?

Bueller?

Or are we all that prideful and unapologetic for it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

AT, you think maybe Trump has the leftists in a double bind? They have to support lawless deportations for political reasons; then Trump gets going with lawless deportations of leftists once he gets an okay from lawless courts?

Leftists are at least smart enough to demand rule of law protections via the courts, even at the risk of ceding political advantage to get it.

[Incunabulum]

They weren't demanding that for Obama's deportations. Or Biden's importations. Or Biden openly flouting the USSC or bragging about how he pressured Ukraine to protect his sone.

It's fine when Obama does it - but it's kids in cages when Trump is doing the same thing.

No matter your political leanings, civil rights only matter when the other party is in charge.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Whatabout. Whatabout. Whatabout.

[Frank Drackman]

Watsamatter U?

[Incunabulum]

You didn't care then - don't expect others to care now.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Incanabulum — I get that you have no particularized idea whether or not I previously cared. I have always cared. I make it routine practice to test every premise by reversing its partisan polarity, to see whether that changes the outlook. Whatever premises I find I cannot defend on either partisan side of a question, I reject or modify.

That is easy for me, because I am not a party partisan who favors rule by either the Ds or the Rs. Although, to be forthright, I must confess that I disfavor almost everything I hear presently from Rs, too many of whom currently suffer personal political afflictions easy to recognize, but genuinely baffling to account for.

I learned that last bit from Rs, when I asked them directly to account for themselves. That is something I do constantly on both partisan sides of many questions. Recently, among Rs, no luck. They seem either unable to explain themselves, or unwilling to do it.

[Joe_dallas]

resorting to calling out "whatabout" is just an attempt to hide the left's double standard and hypocracy.

[David Nieporent]

Resorting to using whatabouts is just an admission that you know you're a bad person with bad positions.

[Joe_dallas]

Dishonest DN -
You can no longer hide your hypocracy or your leftism

[David Nieporent]

1) The word is spelled "hypocrisy."
2) If I were a hypocrite, it would have absolutely no bearing on any of the issues we are discussing, so why would you raise the allegation?
3) You are a semi-literate retard who mistakenly thinks he's an autodidact, but who doesn't know what leftism is.

[Sarcastr0]

You're conflating different things to try and jump up a double standards

No one beyond the baseline present for every administration is complaining about the vast majority of Trump's deportations.

It's the few that are performatively cruel, and/or do violence to the existing due process standards that are being talked about.

[David Nieporent]

Or Biden openly flouting the USSC or bragging about how he pressured Ukraine to protect his sone.

It is certainly true that people were not demanding anything about completely imaginary things.

[Joe_dallas]

Dishonest DN

Some imagination from DN
Biden bragged about -
You have seen the video

[David Nieporent]

Biden did brag about putting pressure on Ukraine to fire their corrupt prosecutor; I have seen that video. But he most certainly did not brag about pressuring Ukraine to "protect his son," for four reasons:

1. He didn't say it. One cannot truthfully say that someone "bragged about X" when that person didn't say X.
2. It wasn't Biden's decision. (The bragging that he did do was dishonest; he was just the messenger.)
3. Every single bit of evidence makes clear that the reason that everyone in the west — not just Joe Biden — wanted Shokin fired was because Shokin was not investigating corruption.
4. Even if Shokin had been Elliot Ness and Inspector Javert rolled into one, Biden's son wasn't at risk since the acts of Burisma that Shokin was supposed to be investigating were all from before Hunter Biden joined the board. So there was nothing to 'protect' Hunter from.

[Joe_dallas]

Dishonest DN strikes again

Thats laughable that Biden didnt do it to protect his son - Any quesses why Hunter was on the Bursima board.
As usual, you are omitting key facts.

[Joe_dallas]

[Speaking for normal people]

With millions of possible applications of due process it is still supremely selective to be enraged about one wife-beathing human trafficking MS-13 member. If it is clear to them now why no prescience as Biden let those millions in. Me, I don't think they give a fake sht about due process,not really

[SRG2]

The regime has not yet even shown that he's a member of MS-13. They've had abundant opportunity to do so, yet all they've managed to show is that an informant claimed he was, associated with an impossible detail, that he was seen in the company of people who might have been MS-13 - but no proof about them either - that the was wearing clothes that might be worn aby anyone but that it is claimed indicate MS-13 membership, and finally, and most telling, Trump's photograpgic evidence was photoshopped and his actual tattoos show nothing of the sort.

But sure, take the regime's word for it, sucker.

[Riva]

The left just lies. It’s what they do. Tattoos, visual evidence, court hearings, and other evidence clearly demonstrate that this is an illegal alien gangbanger human trafficker and domestic abuser. Yet he’s still the “Maryland man” innocent victim to the left. Kind of reminds me of the left’s frantic lying about Charlottesville despite the video evidence and the laptop letter lie some of you loonies still won’t let go. What’s interesting now is that the majority of people know you’re full of it, but you just can’t stop.

[SRG2]

I'm still not of the left, you fuckwit. And the regime's purported evidence doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Where are these MS-13 tattoos? Do you at least concede that Trump showed a photoshopped photo?

[Riva]

And then the tantrum and insults. Whatever you claim to be (and as noted above, you’re not exactly an honest crowd, so I’m disinclined to take you at your word ) you’re still engaging in promoting lies. Almost pathological but I wouldn’t give you this excuse because this is quite deliberate.

[SRG2]

No tantrum. And calling you "fuckwit" may be an insult but it's not untrue.

Was the Trump photo photoshopped?

[Riva]

That’s rather pathetic. Lacks the professional touch of the made up pee tape or laptop letter lie. But to be fair, no more patently stupid than the Charlottesville lie.

[SRG2]

But the difference is, this was promoted by the president

And of course you couldn't resist the whatabout

[Riva]

Don’t really understand exactly what you’re babbling about. The only ones lying, and lying rather pathetically, are the president’s opponents. And in the present matter, probably not the wisest political move to make an illegal alien gangbanger human trafficker and domestic abuser the poster child of the open borders movement but if that’s what you really want, I won’t stand in the way.

[SRG2]

Holding a photoshopped photo of Garcia as evidence of his membership of MS-13 is lying.

[Riva]

Is it still called doubling down on stupid considering how much stupid lying you've accumulated here?

[bernard11]

The whole MS-13 business strikes me as made-up nonsense intended to smear Garcia.

I mean, MS-13 is a criminal organization, right? People join criminal organizations to participate in crimes, just like people join tennis clubs to play tennis, etc.

So where are the gang-related crimes Garcia has committed? If there are some provable crimes like that why isn't he in prison in the US, or long-since deported? Instead of that we have tattoos which, by the way, are not proof of anything.

[Riva]

Human trafficking. What other violations of law has the illegal alien gangbanger engaged in? Well as noted above, he is (or was) an ILLEGAL ALIEN. Now, maybe the El Salvadoran officials should look into other gang related activities. Because he’s a citizen of El Salvador in El Salvador and he’s their problem now. And, just so you know, MS-13 is not just a criminal organization, they’re a designated terrorist organization.

[HazelMeade]

If they had enough evidence of human trafficking to convict him, they would have done so. All you have is ONE traffic stop in 2022 where some cops speculated that the people he was driving might be illegal aliens.
If this guy were really a dangerous violent gangbanger as you claim there would be a much longer pattern of arrests and interactions with law enforcement. And indeed, he probably would have already been deported.
The reality is that ICE was already doing a pretty good job removing criminal aliens before Trump was in office. That's why he had to hurridly invoke the AEA and round people up who didn't have criminal convictions and people who were here legally, and shove them on those flights without any due process, and then keep their names secret. Because there just aren't that many criminal aliens that haven't already been removed. If they provided hearings, if the release their names, people would find out that they weren't criminal aliens at all.

[Riva]

Dangerous? How could anyone possibly believe that an illegal alien gangbanger human trafficker and domestic abuser was dangerous? But even if we pretend otherwise, he was unequivocally an illegal with no right to remain in this country. And now he’s back home. If you want to live next to this paragon of civic virtue, I suggest you move to El Salvador.

[David Nieporent]

They've had abundant opportunity to do so, yet all they've managed to show is that an informant claimed he was,

No, they haven't! The only evidence that such an informant even exists — let alone that he said that — is the unsworn, uncorroborated word of a dirty cop!

[HazelMeade]

This is a great point considering that they seem to have scoured the records of every police agency in the country for anything they can throw at Abrego Garcia. So where is this informant? Could they not get the dirty cop to tell them his name? Is there no record of his existence? Or could they just not locate his whereabouts? Perhaps he is in hiding? You would think they would have some video of said informant speaking in some shadowy back-lighted room, dishing up the dirt on him. At this point, since no such informant has been located, we should assume the informant doesn't exist. If they can't find him to drag Garcia's name through the mud on television, they aren't going to get him to show up on the witness stand either.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

What lawlessness? He's getting rid of criminals.

[Sarcastr0]

It's important that the government be required to prove people are criminals before shipping them off to prison.

Putting that prison in a another country doesn't make that less important.

[HazelMeade]

According to CBS, which was able to obtain the names of the 238 people on those flights, 3/4 of them have no criminal record.
The only rationale for throwing them in prison is the accusation of being in a gang. Often, based purely on the fact that they have tattoos. Not even that the tattoos say "Tren de Aragua" or anything. But just that the *have* tats.
They're Venezuelan, and they have tats, so... prison!

[Malika the Maiz]

As I’ve mentioned before it’s interesting that MAGAns are only able to think of this case as to whether the guy is a “bad guy” or not and can’t imagine that someone might see it in terms of concerns about the federal government engaging in an illegal act.

[Incunabulum]

What was the illegal act though?

The arrest, detainment, and deportations were all legal. There was a real *error* in that they didn't fill out the right paperwork for a judge to sign before deporting *to El Salvador*.

Since both the Democrats and Republicans have, for a long time now, supported 'good faith error' exemptions, I don't see why they're screaming about this error.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No. Deportations without due process are not legal.

Imprisonment under foreign jurisdiction, in foreign torture prisons? Process to do that does not exist.

[ThePublius]

"torture prison?" You throw that term around like leftists do "assault weapons."

[Mr. Bumble]

"torture prison" DC jail, Fulton County jail, Metropolitan Detention Center.....?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/20/human-rights-watch-declaration-prison-conditions-el-salvador-jgg-v-trump-case

[Incunabulum]

He had due process. The man even had an active deportation order - with the stipulation that he not be deported to El Salvador.

The deportation was carried out erroneously - but not illegally.

[Sarcastr0]

The deportation was carried out erroneously - but not illegally.

Are you saying court orders don't have the force of law?

[Incunabulum]

1. We didn't put him on that prison.

2. He was claiming asylum because he was a gang member who feared retaliation from another gang - he admitted it.

3. CECOT isn't a 'torture prison'.

4. He's not even in CECOT

Get your talking points updated.

[David Nieporent]

1. We handed him to the Salvadorans to put into that prison.
2. He admitted no such thing, liar. He never said one word about being in a gang or fearing retaliation from another gang. (That's such a stupid premise for a lie; if he were in a gang, why wouldn't he have gotten protection from that gang, rather than by moving to the U.S. to work construction?)
3. Yes, it is.
4. He was until they started playing shell games to hide him.

[Riva]

Define what process you think is “due” to an illegal? In most circumstances, if it came to it, a review by immigration officials would more than suffice. Illegals are not entitled to the same due process as citizens at any rate, and they certainly have no due process right to remain in this country.

[David Nieporent]

Define what process you think is “due” to an illegal?

The same process due to anyone: notice and a hearing. (And for the simple minded: a hearing includes a right to review evidence against oneself and to present evidence in one's favor.)

[Riva]

That may be true in your broken little mind but fortunately has no foundation in any precedent.

[windycityattorney]

Speaking of precedent. You may want to read up on Yick Wo v. Hopkins. Or Wong Wing v. United States. Or Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982)

Or Plyer v Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Just a taste of what you will encounter: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality…” "Thus, the entirety of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all people in the United States, not just US citizens."

If the 14th amendment due process clause applies to the states; what do you think the 5th amendment due process clause means for the federal government?? I believe the constitutional phrasing is somewhat similar.

[Riva]

We’re speaking of immigration/deportation matters. It is beyond absurd to suggest that a illegal, with respect to such matters, has due process rights equivalent to an american citizen and citing passages out of context doesn’t make it any more rational.

[Riva]

And it should be noted, none of the cases you cite are relevant to the removal of illegals. Wong Wing involved criminal sentencing. Landon concerned a permanent resident alien. And Yick Wo v Hopkins? WTF?

[Riva]

And ever heard of the expedited removal proceedings for illegals, crazy Dave? How much process is due there? Of course you won’t respond because you’re an intellectually dishonest little troll, but that’s redundant.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no good faith exception to obeying a direct court order.

[Mr. Bumble]

Courts and judges are not infallible and no one should be bound by an illegal order.

[David Nieporent]

SCOTUS is not final because it is infallible; it is infallible because it is final.

Who decides whether the order is illegal? If the target of the order got to make that decision, then there would be no such thing as a court order.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course there would be court orders. The question is whether it is a legal order which you are compelled to follow. If you honestly believe the order is illegal and your don't comply you will probably be subject to some form of discipline (criminal or civil charges) where you will have a right to argue your position.
Nazis didn't get away with the defense "I was just following orders".

[David Nieporent]

The question is whether it is a legal order which you are compelled to follow.

No, that is not in fact a question. Or, rather — as Dr. Ed could tell you — it's a stupid question with a simple answer: yes.

If you honestly believe the order is illegal and your don't comply

… then you are no different than someone without such a belief but doesn't comply.

The only defenses to non-compliance are (a) lack of knowledge of the order; (b) actual inability to comply with the order despite best efforts to comply; and (c) the court not having personal jurisdiction over you.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Supreme court is merely final because it is final. We're all perfectly free to notice that it's fallible despite that finality. Noticing it just doesn't have much in the way of consequences, most of the time.

On rare occasions, like freedom of religion and the RFRA, enough people think the Supreme court is wrong enough that there ARE consequences. Which the Court, of course, tries to minimize, but with only so much success.

[not guilty]

The line about infallibility comes from Justice Robert Jackson, concurring in result in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953):

Conflict with state courts is the inevitable result of giving the convict a virtual new trial before a federal court sitting without a jury. Whenever decisions of one court are reviewed by another, a percentage of them are reversed. That reflects a difference in outlook normally found between personnel comprising different courts. However, reversal by a higher court is not proof that justice is thereby better done. There is no doubt that, if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

[Incunabulum]

There is for cops.

[Sarcastr0]

Not for a direct court order.

And this isn't cops.

[Sarcastr0]

Not for a direct court order.

And the AG isn't cops.
The federal analogy to cops is the FBI.

You're mixing up the first half and last half of Law and Order.
*Dun* *Dun*

[Life of Brian]

The AG is no longer over the FBI? I welcome a cite on that.

[Sarcastr0]

Over the FBI is not the same as in the FBI.

Is the President in the military?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, if your position is so fragile that you have to try to sell that the head of an institution ackshully isn't part of it, it might be worth taking a step back and reconsidering. Hey, a guy can dream.

[Sarcastr0]

The AG isn’t a cop, and the President is not part of the military.

Flounce all you want, you're attempt at pedantry is wrong.

[David Nieporent]

The arrest, detainment, and deportations were all legal. There was a real *error* in that they didn't fill out the right paperwork for a judge to sign before deporting *to El Salvador*.

Either you're a liar or you know nothing about the law — or, of course, both. There was no "paperwork" issue. It was illegal under U.S. law to send him to El Salvador.

(One could just as easily argue that Abrego Garcia didn't come to the U.S. illegally; he just made an "error" by failing to fill out the appropriate paperwork before crossing the border.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Hewas under an order of deportation.
He was deported. Good.
There was no legal basis for the judge's decision to exclude deportation to his native country of El Salvador.

[David Nieporent]

Hewas under an order of deportation.

He was not under an order of deportation. The court granted withholding of removal.

There was no legal basis for the judge's decision to exclude deportation to his native country of El Salvador.

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid, malicious, and uninformed it is. But the judge's decision is binding regardless of your opinion.

[Mr. Bumble]

He could have legally been deported at any time (except to El Salvador).
I'll concede that although I think the judge who granted the withholding of removal was wrong, the government did not challenge it just as they failed to enforce immigration law during the Biden presidency.

[David Nieporent]

the government did not challenge it just as they failed to enforce immigration law during the Biden presidency.

This was during the Trump presidency.

[BrotherMovesOn]

This is not Bumble's day.
Mercy Rule invoked.

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome troll.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and four years of Biden's presidency.

[Brett Bellmore]

He WAS under an order of deportation, the court granted withholding of removal pursuant to INA 241(b)(3).

Let me quote the actual ruling we're talking about:

"Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be deported to a particular country rather than the right to remain in the US."

Withholding of removal is binding only in regards to deportation to a particular country. It doesn't lift an order of deportation, it simply limits WHERE you can be deported to. The judge was quite explicit that the order did NOT give Garcia any sort of legal status in the US.

Of course, if nobody else wants to admit you, the difference may seem academic. But it still remains that withholding doesn't free you from an order of deportation. Garcia remained eminently deportable.

Just not to El Salvador.

[David Nieporent]

He WAS under an order of deportation, the court granted withholding of removal pursuant to INA 241(b)(3).

You're confused about the difference between a finding of removability and an order of deportation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I take it you now concede that that the withholding of removal didn't bar deporting Garcia, period, but only barred him being deported to El Salvador, and nowhere else?

Which is why we keep saying that Trump stupidly deported him to the one place in the entire world he actually had a solid legal case against being deported to.

[rloquitur]

Is it binding? Doesn't look that way as things have turned out . . . .

[Speaking for normal people]

Yeah but you're wrong. I'm betting the farm on the birthright citizenship outcome. I've read the best Amicus Curiae and Trump has it hands down.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think our current birthright citizenship rule is nuts, but there's no freaking way Trump is winning this one.

[Mr. Bumble]

...because he's wrong or because he's Trump?

[SRG2]

Because he's wrong, fuckwit.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course he's wrong because he is Trump.

[Incunabulum]

Wait, I thought it was JD Vance that was wrong;)

[SRG2]

No, he's wrong because text and precedent say he's wrong. That's different from the philosophical position adopted by you and the other cultists that "right" is determined with reference to Dear Leader's opinion.

[Mr. Bumble]

You may have a case with precedence but the text is somewhat ambiguous.

[David Nieporent]

We have centuries of historical practice, plain text of the constitution, plain text of the law, and the plain text of a string of court precedents.

[SRG2]

the text is somewhat ambiguous.

Only if you are determined that it must be.,

[Brett Bellmore]

The existing precedent is against him, and the existing precedent is not obviously contrary to the actual text of the Constitution, and I don't think the majority on the court will want to upset this precedent in order to give Trump this win, even if they privately agree the precedent goes too far. Trump being Trump amounts to a judicial headwind against him, he's going to lose all ties because they really do NOT like him. And this one would be a hard sell for any administration.

The position he wants adopted is not bat-shit insane, a lot of current judicial interpretations of constitutional clauses are crazier, so you can't say he's categorically wrong. But I do not expect him to win.

This is a case where he should pursue an amendment. I'll say it yet again, as I did during his first term: The Republicans should go ahead and call a constitutional convention, while they still have a Congressional majority. Many of the things they want can only be secured by amending the Constitution, and the changes in question would be popular. And Republicans control enough states that no amendment Republicans seriously dislike can be ratified.

Hold the damned convention already, it's the only chance to do a lot of important things, like lock down the size of the Court against packing, mandate a balanced budget, and, yes, fix birthright citizenship.

[ducksalad]

the changes in question would be popular

They would need to be so popular that opposition doesn't reach 51% in 1/4 of the states.

The convention itself will be perceived as a partisan exercise by whichever party proposed it, and that fact alone may be enough to generate 51% opposition in 1/4 of the states.

One might have thought that a proposition that "everyone deserves due process when the government wants to incarcerate them" would be popular. Yet we see that a large fraction of Republican commenters here oppose the idea simply because Democrats currently claim to support it. There is no way such an amendment would pass right now.

Balanced budget amendment? Do you mean the "raise taxes amendment" or the "cut services amendment"? Because once it gets labeled in media as one or the other, it's toast.

I think minimally sane people, i.e. who can at least see it's bad when the other side is doing it - reach a 51% level in 1/4 of the states. Minimally sane people are not going to abolish birthright citizenship unless they know what the constitutionally guaranteed replacement regime is going to be. And once you start talking about the details, people like yourself are going to have a falling out with the white nationalists, and you won't even be able to agree on a proposed amendment text.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and there ARE a limited number of issues that are exactly that popular. As you can see with, for instance, ballot proposals on racial preferences in California.

And I'd just LOVE to see the Democrats simultaneously claim that they had no intention of packing the Court, AND object to an amendment making Court packing unconstitutional.

But, yes, you couldn't JUST have an amendment abolishing birthright citizenship. It would have to be specific as to what would replace it.

[ducksalad]

And I'd just LOVE to see the Democrats simultaneously claim that they had no intention of packing the Court, AND object to an amendment making Court packing unconstitutional.

But of course that is not how Democratic opponents would say it. It would be along the lines of "This is a Republican scheme to unfairly lock in their majority FORVER" and it doesn't matter that the statement doesn't make any sense and isn't responsive. Just like it doesn't matter than Trump's rants don't make any sense and aren't responsive.

Having said that, a simple amendment saying the number of justices is nine ought to have a chance of passing *IF* the MAGA crowd could control themselves and refrain from openly making it into an own-the-libs issue. Because 51% of 1/4 don't like being owned.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember that it's 3/4 of the states, not 3/4 of the population. The fact that California has a lot of people in it doesn't help Democrats at all in keeping an amendment from being ratified, California's vote against counts no more than Montana's vote for.

Republicans control 28 states to the Democrats' 22, using state legislative composition as a proxy. (Congress can require ratification by public vote or legislature, as it prefers, remember.) They just need to flip the votes in 7 of those 22 states to get an amendment ratified, while Democrats need to flip about twice as many states.

So I think there probably are a fair number of potential amendments Republicans would like, (Republican voters, not necessarily Republican members of Congress! Which is why they haven't done this yet.) that could feasibly be ratified if a convention originated them, and Republicans would have a clear majority in the convention, too.

Really, the serious obstacle is that Republican members of Congress are much less enthusiastic about those amendments than Republican voters are.

[David Nieporent]

Republicans control 28 states to the Democrats' 22, using state legislative composition as a proxy. (Congress can require ratification by public vote or legislature, as it prefers, remember.) They just need to flip the votes in 7 of those 22 states to get an amendment ratified, while Democrats need to flip about twice as many states.

Your math is, shall we say, interesting. Wanna try again?

[Ridgeway]

@Brett -- I think you need to check your math. You need 3/4 of 50 states, which rounds up to 38, so you'd need to flip 10 Dem states while holding 100% of the Rep states. A tall order.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mea culpa; 38, not 35, so Republicans need to flip 10 of 22 states, while Democrats need to flip 16 of 28.

It still remains that there is little for Republican voters to fear from a constitutional convention. The problem is that the Republican Congressmen are not looking forward to that inevitable term limits amendment.

[ducksalad]

Brett: Congress can require ratification by public vote or legislature, as it prefers, remember.

Actually, I think the options specified in Article V are legislatures or ratifying conventions held in each state.

If Congress leaves the organization of the ratifying conventions up to the states, or if Congress specifies a blanket rule like use the same districts you use for your lower house, then the conventions are likely to end up looking very much like the legislatures themselves.

If Congress decides to do the districting for state level conventions themselves I expect it'll be a world-class mess. Congress has never had to do redistricting and it's something that even sets Republicans against each other.

[bernard11]

(Republican voters, not necessarily Republican members of Congress! Which is why they haven't done this yet.)

I'm tired of this repeated complaint from you. I don't like the vast majority of Republican politicians, but I'll wager they have abetter idea of what their voters want than you do.

You sound like whoever it was who allegedly said she couldn't understand how Nixon won in 1972, since no one she knew voted for him.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore continues to suppose there is such a thing as a Constitutional Convention which Congress continues to control. But to control a Constitutional Convention is not a power Congress enjoys.

Whatever power there is to control a Constitutional Convention resides, as previously, in the jointly sovereign People, not in the Congress. And a pre-wired Constitutional convention—the only kind Bellmore wants—is not a Constitutional convention at all.

To be valid, the sovereignty-defining constitutive power must be exercised without constraint. If not, whatever actor manages to impose the constraint becomes effectively the sovereign.

History provides one and only one precedent for a federal Constitutional Convention. That precedent teaches that when the opening gavel falls, everything goes up for grabs, without limitation, including even terms of ratification.

Maybe Bellmore would say, "Do it anyway," without any foresight to anticipate what, "it," might become. The prospects for political catastrophe from that approach are literally unimaginable, because they are literally unlimited.

For instance, is it even conceivable that a Constitutional Convention could conduct business anywhere now, without a concerted effort by America's wealthiest to dictate all the outcomes? They would mobilize literally hundreds of billions of dollars to make that happen. It would take less than 10 among such people to do that out of their own pockets. They would be avid to count themselves the nation's next founders.

If that process were underway, how many millions of people would mob the venue and its vicinity, armed. Their leaders—until that moment likely unknown to almost everyone—would be prepared to do whatever it took to force their own preferences.

If after ensuing chaos there were a merciful halt, what prospect would remain that the nation could reach agreement that the nation's now-existing Constitution continued valid? To suppose foresight sufficient to answer that question would amount to a table stakes bet on one roll of political dice. All the wealth of the nation would be piled on that table, with a concerted party of the nation's worst people kicking at the table legs, trying to grab whatever fell off, if they could not overturn the table altogether.

The aftermath of that would, by default, become the new national order. Likely, a best-case scenario.

No thanks, Bellmore. Self-interest alone is too cautious to license stupid experiment on that scale. The opening sentence of the Preamble to the Second U.S. Constitution is not going to be, "Let's See What Happens If We Do This."

[DrCoke]

I don't think you know what a Constitutional Convention is. A simple Amendment will suffice.

They should do that, because the SC will not go this far, even though it's the right answer.

[Brett Bellmore]

A simple amendment would suffice, but would require a 2/3 vote of both chambers of Congress, which would never happen. While it only requires a majority vote of both chambers to kick off the convention. Then one would hope that the birthright amendment would be among the amendments originated.

Only hope, though, because the Convention decides what amendments it will originate, once it is called.

I assure you, I do know the differences.

[HazelMeade]

If you deny birthright citizenship to people who are in the country unlawfully, then you will end up creating a permanent underclass of "illegals" who were born here. They'll marry each other and create more "illegals" who were born here. And so on for generations.
The moral implications of that ought to horrify you.

And if you can't do it to illegal aliens, then it's pretty hard to deny it to legal aliens who are here on longer term visas. You don't want to create an incentive to be in the country illegally.

At best, I could see a restriction saying that people born to parents who are here on certain classes of temporary visitor visas, 3 months or less, don't get birthright citizenship.

But there's a better solution to "anchor babies" actually. You deny the "anchor baby" the right to sponsor their parents for a green card. Basically a child born to a non-US-person (Citizens and legal residents) on US soil, cannot sponsor that parent for immigration purposes. The parent has to find a different way to get in. That would immediately remove the incentives for "birth tourism".

[David Nieporent]

While I don't quarrel with your last point, I would add that the whole "anchor baby" thing is mostly nonsense. The "incentives" are pretty flimsy under the current regime, where nobody can sponsor an immediate family member like a parent until he or she turns 21 anyway, and if the parent spent more than 6 months here after giving birth, would be excluded for years even after the now grown child was permitted to sponsor.

I don't think there are lots of (e.g.) Guatemalans saying, "I'm going to sneak across the border, give birth, immediately go back to Guatemala, and then wait 21 years so that I can be sponsored to come back to the U.S. legally."

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason they serve as anchors is that they make it really hard, on an emotional level, to deport the parents. NOT because they actually get you some legal status.

But, yes, there is actually a whole industry of birth tourism to the US, by which people can get US citizenship for their impending children. And people pay good money to do it.

[bernard11]

But, yes, there is actually a whole industry of birth tourism to the US, by which people can get US citizenship for their impending children. And people pay good money to do it.?

Cite? Actual data?

[David Nieporent]

Cite? Actual data?

There is, of course, none. There are some breathless anecdotes — including published in real news outlets — about Chinese people doing this. Nobody has any statistics and everyone just "knows" that it happens a bunch. I think it's safe to say that it happens more than zero and less than any amount that would be noticeable in anything resembling data.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd likely make the amendment prospective, not strip citizenship away from those already born here.

But you're wrong about birth tourism: People don't do it just to get in themselves, they do it to give their children options they wouldn't otherwise have.

[HazelMeade]

Even then, starting now, you would have children being born to illegal aliens that would be illegal aliens themselves, and those kids would grow up, some of them would marry each other, and have kids, and their kids would be illegal aliens. And lets remember under current law, you can't normalize your status just by marrying an American. So then you get situations like someone who is a 2rd generation US born person, who is illegal but has to go back to their "home country" in order to become legal, which might not even agree to take them because they weren't born there. So they are now stateless people. It would create a human rights nightmare and would be repealed within a generation.

Also immigrating yourself isn't the *only* reason people do it, but it's the main reason. People aren't that motivated by their future children's welfare before they give birth. And some people have very long time horizons. The kid's an insurance policy in case some other immigration route doesn't work out.

[bernard11]

they do it to give their children options they wouldn't otherwise have.

And here I thought giving one's children options you don't have was admirable.

What exactly is the problem?

[Speaking for normal people]

Two logic errors there
He is an illegal even if he is a saint
How is it illegal to treat an illegal as an illegal

Your posting history will show not one scintialla of foresight on your part as those millions came in here never destined for citizehship

[SRG2]

How is it illegal to treat an illegal as an illegal

Whatr does "treating an illegal as an illegal" mean? If it means, deporting him with a modicum of due process, it's not illegal. If it means deporting him contrary to a protective order to a brutal prison in El Salvador, it is illegal.

[Sarcastr0]

Dehumanization.

It's nakedly out in the open at this point.

[DrCoke]

The rationale for not sending him to El Salvador was a specific fear of a specific gang. That gang has not existed for some time.

So, yes, that was an administrative error. The question is: How should this be remedied.

The answer is that it does not actually need any remedy. He has been deported to his home country and all is well.

The administration should be more careful on their paperwork. They have millions more to go, the sooner the bettr.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Do you understand how a court order works? Do you really think the Executive can decide that because of reasons, a court order is no longer valid and just disregard it? That's really how you think our legal system works?

[SRG2]

Do you really think the Executive can decide that because of reasons, a court order is no longer valid and just disregard it? That's really how you think our legal system works?

That's what he thinks when it's Trump;

[Riva]

Interesting word “illegal” because apparently you’re addressing the subject of illegal aliens and fail to see it in terms of the initial illegal acts that produced this population. They were allowed to trespass in the millions by the corrupt Biden administration yet you clowns cheered on the violations of federal law.

[not guilty]

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia may well be a shady character. But under our constitutional regime, shady characters within our borders and pillars of the community alike are entitled to due process of law. As Justice Felix Frankfurter said, "It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people." United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).

The notion that due process should only be afforded to good and noble persons is pernicious. During my career I have represented hundreds of scoundrels accused or convicted of truly heinous conduct, including:

A Republican nominee for a State Senate seat who fatally shot his Democratic opponent;
The driver of a stolen car who led police on a high speed chase that resulted in the death of a police officer;
A mother who killed her five year old son;
A serial rapist;
A high school student who took a rifle to school and killed a teacher and a student and seriously wounded another teacher;
A mother who failed to protect her two young children from abuse at the hands of her paramour;
A man who hired someone to kill his wife;
An obese woman who gave birth and hid the newborn overnight in a crawl space in 38 degree weather before surrendering the infant at a hospital so that the father would not know about the pregnancy and delivery;
The leader of a local chapter of the Gangster Disciples who, while still a juvenile, ordered the killing of a 12 year old and who was later sentenced to death in another, unrelated killing.

I am glad that these folks went to prison. I am also quite proud of the role I played in helping to afford them due process of law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Criminal v. Civil Process....

[A Japanese Student]

To the contrary, this Court has reiterated that deportation is “a particularly severe penalty,” which may be of greater concern to a convicted alien than “any potential jail sentence.” Jae Lee v. United States, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 11) (quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356, 365, 368 (2010) ). And we have observed that as federal immigration law increasingly hinged deportation orders on prior convictions, removal proceedings became ever more “intimately related to the criminal process.” Chaidez v. United States, 568 U. S. 342, 352 (2013) (quoting Padilla, 559 U. S., at 365). What follows, as Jordan recognized, is the use of the same standard in the two settings.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) (plurality op.)

But, grave as that penalty may be, I cannot see why we would single it out for special treatment when (again) so many civil laws today impose so many similarly severe sanctions. Why, for example, would due process require Congress to speak more clearly when it seeks to deport a lawfully resident alien than when it wishes to subject a citizen to indefinite civil commitment, strip him of a business license essential to his family’s living, or confiscate his home? I can think of no good answer.

(Gorsuch, J., concurring in judgment)

[Michael P]

The first sentence is a damning indictment of the rest of the world -- at least if it's true. Deportation being worse than a life in prison implies the kind of threat to life that the left insists is why refugee status exists.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And we have observed that as federal immigration law increasingly hinged deportation orders on prior convictions,"

Isn't this confusing federal immigration law, (Under which mere illegal presence without any aggravating factors is enough to justify deportation.) with federal immigration practice? Basically it represents an effort to take a pattern of prosecutorial discretion, and lock it into place.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, it was a mistake to hitch your wagon to a serial wife beating, human trafficking, illegal alien gangbanger. Some are simply too invested in the narrative to see clearly.

St. Abrego isn't coming back to America, ever; he is home now, in prison where he belongs.

The Team R nominee who blew away the Team D opponent sounds interesting. What happened? Old fashioned duel with pistols?

[Vryedni]

Hitching one's wagon to due process =/= hitching one's wagon to the person deprived of due process. You needn't be a lawyer to understand that. It's basic civics.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

He was given due process and worded to deport in 2019.

[David Nieporent]

And then by that same process at that same time he was granted withholding of removal.

[SRG2]

He can't understand that - he is intellectually incapable of understanding that. Like the other cultists, he believes - "thinks" would be too much of a claim - that only good guys are entitled to constitutional protections. He may deny it, but then he'd be lying.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't guarantee he's not coming back, but if it's in the next few years, it won't be for long.

[Sarcastr0]

The administration is both lawless and stubborn isn't the banger argument you think it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not defending the administration being stubborn, but if they bring him back to afford him due process, he IS going to end up deported again, and likely straight back to El Salvador, because there isn't any argument at all that he isn't an illegal alien, and his case for not being sent back to El Salvador was dependent on facts on the ground that have since changed.

It's all so stupid: They could have achieved exactly what they wanted while crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. They just screwed up and then got stubborn about it.

[Sarcastr0]

You swing so wildly between the administration is stupid and this is a double standard because all these liberal judges are ruling in bad faith I honestly can't keep track.

[bernard11]

Not to mention between Trump is a genius and Trump is a bumbling fool.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump is smart. I'd never claim he's a genius, or that he doesn't have personality defects. I just object to the over the top trash talk. Anybody who was as stupid as Democrats routinely claim would never have accomplished a fraction of what Trump has, whether or not you like what he has accomplished.

[bernard11]

Trump may or may not have slightly above average intelligence. He is undoubtedly ignorant, wildly dishonest, and incompetent at anything but self-promotion.

Smart people don't have six businesses go bankrupt under them, no matter what excuse you are going to offer. They also don't share his bizarre opinions about trade and tariffs, among other things.

[Riva]

Well, by issuing illegal, unconstitutional orders that grossly exceed the power of the judiciary and infringe on executive prerogatives, they’re not exactly showing “good faith,” little communist girl who never smiled.

[bernard11]

his case for not being sent back to El Salvador was dependent on facts on the ground that have since changed.

Maybe those facts have changed, and maybe they haven't. In any case I'd prefer to rely on an actual hearing rather than simply take your word, or that of the RW media, for it.

[not guilty]

In the assassination case that I mentioned, according to the most incriminating testimony at trial, the decedent was shot to death inside his truck at his farm in rural Middle Tennessee on October 19, 1998. A farm hand who lived with the victim and his wife testified that he saw someone driving away "pretty fast" from the scene in a black car on a farm road. He saw a photograph of the accused on a local newscast and recognized him as the driver of the black car.

Another witness, a prior acquaintance of the accused, testified that the accused visited him at his home in Arkansas in June of 1988, when he asked the witness about firearms. Later during the visit, speaking of the election, the defendant said that “he had thought about killing [his opponent].” Additionally, he said that “if there were only two people on the ballot, if one of them died 30 days before the election, that he would automatically win.” This witness testified that:

The defendant appeared, again unannounced, at Sergeant Bond’s apartment between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. the night of October 19, 1998. After being admitted into the apartment, the defendant’s first words were, “I did it, man, I did it.” When questioned by Bond, the defendant said, “I killedthat dude. . . . That guy I was running against. . . . I busted a cap in that dude’s head.” The defendant was “[n]ervous, fidgety, pacing all over [Bond’s] livingroom [sic], pacing behind the couch, couldn’t be still.” The defendant said that he had used a nine-millimeter pistol he had gotten from “a guy he knew that either had a business or went to police auctions, went to gun shows, things like that.” He said that, after he shot the victim, “he drove for about 10 or 15 minutes and threw [the pistol] out the window.” Disclosing the details of the killing, the defendant said that it had been “kind of foggy” that morning and he had gone to the victim’s house and shot him. Concerned that he had left tire tracks at the scene, he asked if Bond “knew a place where he could get . . . new tires.” He said that, at the shooting, “he passed a guy on the road that either knew him or might have known him, and – but he didn’t know whether he saw him or not, or could tell who he was.” The defendant questioned Bond, “You’ll cover my ass on this, won’t you?” Bond replied that he would provide an alibi for the defendant, who then said, “If you walked in in your dress blues with all of those medals you’ve got, that would be the best alibi I could ever have.”

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OPINIONS/tcca/PDF/031/looperb.pdf (Ellipses and brackets in original.)

The killing occurred at a time near enough to the November election that no replacement Democratic nominee could be selected. The Defendant was arrested and charged with murder prior to the election. The decedent's widow was elected to the State Senate on write-in ballots. The Defendant still got more than 1,500 votes despite his arrest having been highly publicized. (Tennessee at that time was a mostly Democratic, but still competitive, state.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

And he thought that a decorated police officer would cover for him?

[not guilty]

Sergeant Bond was a Marine recruiter, not a police officer.

[Commenter_XY]

Holy Moly....that is some case!

[bernard11]

it was a mistake to hitch your wagon to a serial wife beating, human trafficking, illegal alien gangbanger.

XY, it was a mistake to hitch your wagon to a lot of unproven claims, and to the denial of due process for someone accused of serious offenses.

But, as you say,

Some are simply too invested in the narrative to see clearly.

That's you.

[Commenter_XY]

The video and tape of the gangbangers wife tearfully recounting how St Abrego beat the sh*t out of her doesn't lie. The deportation orders aren't a lie, either.

The bodycam footage of the TN state police was a hoot. Don't believe my lying eyes, amirite?

[bernard11]

The WOR wasn't a lie either.

As for the incidents you raise, bring them up in a hearing, let Abrego challenge them and present his case, explore the incident with his wife, and then proceed appropriately.

And how is he a gangbanger? What gang-related activities has he engaged in? Did he go bowling with someone whose second cousin might be in a gang?

Apparently you still don't understand the complaint people are making.

[Speaking for normal people]

I appllaud you too. but those are citizens. If law means so much to you why does 'illegal alien' have no effect

[Speaking for normal people]

Just bullshit , I read The Claremont Amicus Curiae in the upcoming Birthright Citizenship SCOTUS case. I will say it now: I have never read a clearer rebuttal of what is alleged against Trump and a more conclusive defense of the position Trump took.

As for you, show me that even a spark of this bothered you as Biden let millions in with no path to citizenship. I think you have what is called 'fake outrage" It's your loathing of Trump under cover of 'concern about due process" WE know that the lowest scum on earth deported or registered under Biden were able to get back in and rape and murder and do all manner of bestial things. Even some he pardoned have since shown godawful anti-social behavior

[Riva]

Define what process you think an illegal alien gangbanger human trafficker is “due”? He has no right to remain in the US. In fact, he is an El Salvadoran citizen in El Salvador. Do you believe a federal judge can order the US president to seize him from El Salvador or order international sanctions against El Salvador for noncompliance with the federal judge’s whims?

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court has given guidance in the Alien Enemies Act removal case, Trump v. J.G.G., et al., 604 U. S. ____ (2025):

“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.

For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

While Abrego Garcia's matter is not a removal under the AEA, it would seem that comparable procedural safeguards would apply before removing him would be lawful. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 330 (1976). If and when he is returned to the U.S., Abrego Garcia will be entitled to notice of the factual grounds upon which the government seeks to deport him and an opportunity to controvert those facts or otherwise present reasons that deportation is inappropriate.

[Riva]

Factual grounds? He was an illegal, and all evidence points to the fact that he was (or is) an MS-13 gangbanger, human trafficker and, on the side, a domestic abuser. He had no frigging right to remain in this country and the only process he would have been entitled to prior to removal, was at the most, a review before immigration officials, not an art. III judge.

[Riva]

And just curious, please explain how your “due process” nonsense squares with the expedited removal process provided by law?

[DrCoke]

Due Process for deporting illegal aliens is merely the confirmation that they are illegal aliens. He had his due process, in court, and judge said he should be deported.

The judge said not to send him to El Salvador because of a specific threat from a rival gang. That gang has not existed for some time.
That fact is happenstance and the administration lucked out in that sense.

There is no reason to bring him back to the US.

Meanwhile, Democrat hysteria that Trump is kidnapping US citizens and sending them to torture.
Give me a fucking break.

[jb]

"There is no reason to bring him back to the US."

Other than the fact that all 9 members of the Supreme Court said so?

[Bob from Ohio]

He meant no good reason.

[rloquitur]

All good. I helped represent a quintuple murderer. But let's be honest about Kilmar, ok. He was mistakenly deported to ES--could have been sent anywhere else in the world, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. So let's climb down off the high horse.

[Sarcastr0]

You fucked up off the break.
It’s telling you think it’s about politics, and it’s all from the left.

Partisanship has broken your brain. You will justify anything Trump does now and ask why all these leftists are defending it.

[Kazinski]

We have all spent way too much time and effort discussing the Albrego Garcia matter, so absent new developments here are my last words in the matter (although I may repeat them as needed):

The Trump administration has no intention of requesting Garcia's return.

The District Court Judge has no authority to order them to try, and she knows it.

And nobody, except Albrego, is going to jail over it.

[Sarcastr0]

Digesting each line:

No need to discuss further.
Trump is lawless.
Due process just requires a bit of bad faith to render it null.
The administration will get away with it.

This actually lays out a pretty strong case for why people are going to keep harping on shitty this is.

[HazelMeade]

Abrego Garcia is just the beginning.
There were 238 people on those flights. The government hasn't even publicly released their names.
People are figuring out who they are, and finding out that most of THEM don't have criminal records either.
This issue is not going to go away.
If deportation flights to El Salvador even resume (which is a big IF), there are going to be more and more cases of people deported in error, people with no criminal convictions. There will be more lawsuits.
If deportation flights don't resume, if the AEA is struck down, then there's still a major question bout what to do about all those other people who were sent there illegally. Should they all be returned to the US (probably)?
If you're expecting this thing to blow over, your in for a shock. It's just going to grow.

[David Nieporent]

People are figuring out who they are, and finding out that most of THEM don't have criminal records either.

And were here legally, to boot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/05/04/trump-el-salvador-alien-enemies-act-venezuelans/

[HazelMeade]

Right. The stories about just what a major fuckup those flights were, about how many people on them were legal residents with no criminal convictions, is only now starting to emerge. Largely because the administration has been keeping their identities a secret! These people just "disappeared", and their relatives have had to figure out what happened to them through media images and FOIA requests. So now we're starting to figure out their names and we're going to see more Abrego Garcia type cases come out of it.

The most astounding thing is, what did they think was going to happen? Did they think these people didn't have friends and relatives who were going to go to the media and start asking uncomfortable questions?

I guess they were right about one thing: Trump supporters weren't going to blink at imprisoning people they don't like without due process.

[DrCoke]

Fantasy and lies.

[Moderation4ever]

I would note that it is now 51 days since the Trump administration deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia in a self-admitted mistake. The administration has not corrected the error, but rather is still trying to justify the mistake. To the point where Dementia Don shows a picture with M. Garcia's knuckles with MS13 written in sharpie. So, who is really looking sillier?

[Speaking for normal people]

Yet you nevef never say that IF HE IS MS-!3 then he sould rot .
Why is that?

[Moderation4ever]

Because I have no more proof that is MS13 than I have that you are MS13.

[David Nieporent]

Because nobody "should rot" unless he is convicted of a crime after due process.

[HazelMeade]

Even if he is in MS-13, being in a gang is not in itself illegal. You have to convict them of an actual crime to imprison them.
So far you have (a) loitering in a parking lot , and (b) driving some people from Texas to Maryland.

[Bob from Ohio]

Domestic violence too.

[HazelMeade]

His wife isn't pressing charges, so no.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, than his violence towards her is ok. Carry on.

[HazelMeade]

She's the one saying they went to counselling and worked out their issues, and there haven't been any domestic violence calls in 5 years. If you're arguing that the government should charge people with assault even if the victim doesn't want to press charges, then you're going to end up convicting a lot of working class white guys that vote for Trump.

[jb]

Probably no one is changing their mind because: (1) Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador in error, as admitted repeatedly by the administration, (2) the unanimous Supreme Court agreed that the administration should try to get him back, and (3) the issue is hurting Trump's credibility with both the courts and the American people.

[Bob from Ohio]

"the issue is hurting Trump's credibility with ... the American people."

Proof?

[jb]

I've posted the polling data on this in recent open threads.

Trump now has a negative overall approval rating on immigration (typically one of his strongest issues) and on the Abrego Garcia question in particular something like 2/3 of folks with an opinion think he should be returned.

[HazelMeade]

It's interesting how you take the narrative presented by the government in the media for the pure word of truth, with no ability to contest on cross-examine witnesses or any of that stuff that a defendant would be able to do in a court of law. A narrative driven by the highest levels of government, to justify keeping a man imprisoned with no charges, no conviction. While the man who is imprisoned cannot do anything to present his side of the story, because he's imprisoned.

If you think the case is so open and shut that he's a gangster and human trafficker, you should have no problem subjecting that story to the scrutiny that would be imposed in a court of law, under cross examination. Why don't you want to do that? Is it because you think that this paper thin narrative, presented by motivated federal officials, would fall apart were it subjected to the briefest cross-examination?

We try people in court, with rules, with due process, for exactly this reason. You don't get to imprison someone just by throwing out selective cherry picked evidence in the media and painting someone as a horrible person when they have no opportunity to contest that presentation of the fact.

How would you feel if it was YOU in prison, with the government spreading smears in the media and not allowing you a legal opportunity to contest the smears and present your own version of the facts? Would you think this was good enough to convict you put you in prison and throw away the key?

[DrCoke]

It doesn't matter if he is a gang member, a wife beater, a human trafficker, or whatever. He was in the country illegally and a court said he was subject to deportation. He's been deported.

The part about not sending him to El Salvador was based on his fear of a specific threat there which no longer exists. (Arguing about whether that part of his DEPORTATION ORDER from the judge was valid or not is fairly pointless. We will concede that a judge made that stipulation, and that it was an error for ICE to not catch it.) The man has had his due process. There was a fuckup. Does he need MORE due process? No, due to happenstance, he is in the correct position now. Deported safely back to his home country. There's just no point to bringing him back, locking him up for a few days, and then sending his ass back off to some third country. El Salvador, it luckily turns out, is fine after all.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Your faith in the word of this administration is quite touching. And stupid.

[HazelMeade]

They didn't merely deport him, they sent him to a prison on US orders, even though he wasn't convicted of a crime. It is now our responsibility to request his release. This would not be nearly as big a deal if he was back home at his Mom's house.

And no, it was not an independent decision of El Salvador to imprison him that had nothing to do with the US. We shipped him on a prison flight under a deal that was only supposed to include convicted criminals. Even if you can claim that El Salvador is keeping him for it's own reasons, we both know that's functionally false. Trump sent him there, trump does not want to be embarrassed by having to release him. Bukele knows this. So Bukele is keeping him imprisoned, even if he would never have been sent there under Salvadorean law.

And even beyond that. Even if it WAS true that we shipped him back to a country that immediately imprisoned him without due process, it would still be unlawful under US law to do that, because we have rules against deporting people to places where they are going to be unlawfully imprisoned. Which would render Trump's entire scheme of shipping aliens to foreign prisons unlawful.

[David Nieporent]

specific threat there which no longer exists.

I don't quite know how so many rando commenters here who can barely spell, let alone think, are experts in whether Barrio 18 exists in Salvador and what threat it might pose.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you haven't been following the news on how CECOT has reduced gang related crime and participation in El Salvador.

[David Nieporent]

At what point is anyone on the left going to admit that going to bat for Killmore Alfredo Tequila was the wrong choice?

Wrong about what? The facts are:

1) Abrego Garcia was illegally sent to El Salvador.
2) Abrego Garcia was illegally sent to El Salvador to be imprisoned in a torture prison despite never having been convicted of a crime in any country.
3) To the extent the illegal deportation wasn't deliberate — and it may have been — it was the result of a desperate attempt by the administration to illegally rush as many people out of the country as possible before they could get due process.
4) Although this wouldn't justify the administration's actions even if it were true, no evidence has been presented that Abrego Garcia was in MS-13.
5) The administration has defied court orders to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from prison and return to the U.S.

Whether Abrego Garcia is a bad person is not one of the questions at issue, so even if he is, that doesn't make "the left" wrong here. Also, by the low standards being applied to declare him a bad person, the current POTUS is far far far worse in every respect.

[HazelMeade]

Also, before declaring someone a bad person, human trafficker, gangbanger, etc., deserving of being locked up in prison, the normal process is to give that person an opportunity to defend themselves. Indeed, our society has worked out a procedure for this, developed over many centuries, where the person being accused gets to ask questions of the people accusing them of things and call their own witnesses and present their own side of the facts. And then everyone gets to pick apart the facts presented by each side, and a bunch of independent people decide whose story they believe. Funny that the conservatives here don't seem to have any respect for this long-standing social institution, some might call it one of the bedrock institutions our society is founded on.
Instead, what they support is a system in which the executive simply releases information in the media accusing the person of being a bad person, gangbanger, human trafficker, publicly call him names, they troll through every legal record they can access to dig up as much dirt as they can find, and then put it all in the media along with a narrative condemning the person. And that is supposed to be a sufficient substitute. The government told me he was a gangbanger, and LOOK, they found a time when he was stopped by the police for a traffic violation, and the cops thought me might be doing something illegal. Good enough for me!

[Bob from Ohio]

He was illegally in the US and now he's not here anymore. Satisfactory to me.

[Bubba Jones]

Yes, and that's the problem.

[rloquitur]

Laken Riley couldn't be reached for comment.

[Kazinski]

"5) The administration has defied court orders to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from prison and return to the U.S."

Well then tell us, what exactly do you think the administration is obligated to do to come into conformance with the courts order?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Once again, for the ten millionth time, no matter how bad he is accused of being, sending him to El Salvador violated a direct court order, and was thus unlawful. Why is this such a hard concept for you idiots to understand?

And that doesn't even get into the question of due process.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What Trump and everyone else is missing with Alcatraz is that it (a) was the expense of shipping water out there that caused it to be closed, and (b) you can't dump raw sewerage overboard anymore, they'd have to have a sewerage treatment plant out there today.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-alcatraz-prison-fabe3385415ae03829d44e50efb3c1fb

[DrCoke]

I'm not sure how much room they have in the island, but it seems like a small waste treatment plant could be built. Why not?

For fresh water, they should bring up a high-tech solar-poweed desalination plant. I think they have that shit working at that small scale, already, don't they?

Could be a tech showpiece.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Solar doesn't work too well in the fog -- as the USCG has learned...

[Incunabulum]

Desal takes a lot of power and SF bat is the worst place to generate solar power in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not by a long shot it isn't.

[Speaking for normal people]

Israel does it. You balk at this , what do you think of

BLM proposes opening 31M acres of public land to solar development
The updated Western Solar Plan proposal expands potential development by 9 million acres beyond the agency’s original proposa

PENNY WISE, POUND FOOLISH,eh

[jb]

Israel and the Western desert are hot and sunny. Alcatraz is cool and foggy. Hope that helps you understand the words in the post you are responding to.

[Jmaie]

While open as a prison, most of Alcatraz's water needs were met by storing rainwater...

[ThePublius]

You know, JFK made a vow to go to the moon "in this decade," not because it is the easy thing, but because it is the hard thing. It's not like Trump is proposing some new, unprecedented space program. We have the technology to do this. Desalination, waste water treatment, etc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

WHY SPEND THE MONEY?!?

Far cheaper to build it somewhere else.

[Speaking for normal people]

Far cheaper...were you this frugal when Biden was wasting billions.
That is what I always come down to. Is this complainer someone who has always been thrifty and civic -minded. [ naaaah ]

[SRG2]

That is a justification for accusing someone of hypocrisy. It is not remotely a defence to criticism of Trump (or anyone else, for that matter.)

[jb]

LOL. Trump cultists cannot imagine anyone criticizing anything Trump does without being a full on libtard.

A very quick glance at Dr. Ed 2's posting history would make it clear that he is not at all aligned with Biden's administration.

[DrCoke]

It does seem like there's a lot of stink'n dessert where we could more cheaply put a prison. Diesel would be easier to truck in, but solar would also be an option. Regardless, water is always the issue.

Which is why we usually put prisons in places with water and power. There are probably plenty of rural normal places we could build a prison.

Isn't Alcatraz some kind of nature sanctuary at the moment?

[bernard11]

I believe it's a significant tourist attraction, so the cost would be more than just the cost of the work to convert it to a prison.

[Krayt]

I wonder how many tons per second fish shit into the water.

[jb]

A lot, but they usually don't have disease vectors that make people sick in their poo.

[HazelMeade]

Why bother, you could build a new prison anywhere for less money.

I think you just want this for symbolic reasons. Putting a prison in the middle of the San Francisco Bay would send a message to all those woke liberals inhabiting San Francisco. That's what this is really about, isn't it?

[Brett Bellmore]

I would expect so. If he wanted new prison space on the cheap he'd probably just get some pointers from Joe Arpaio.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or El Salvador.

[DrCoke]

I don't know if it's directed at Sam Francisco. I think it's more that "Alcatraz' is the only notorious prison that anybody in the whole country has ever heard of.

It doesn't seem like it makes economic sense.

[Krayt]

When you went "up the river", you went here.

[David Nieporent]

That's what this is really about, isn't it?

I don't think so, no. Trump's just old and senile and the idea of Alcatraz as an amazing, unescapable prison for the worst people is probably just stuck in his head.

[Moderation4ever]

Do we really need to build more prison. We know that most prisons are not doing the job they were intended to do. So the solution is to build more? Maybe we need to start looking at the prisons we have and make them more effective.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We know that most prisons are not doing the job they were intended to do. "

There is an escape here and there but I do believe all prisons keep their prisoners in prison.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There aren't as many escapes as there used to be -- technology has improved.

[not guilty]

The defendants in the matter of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia v. Noem, et al., are under an order of the United States District Court, approved 9-0 by SCOTUS, 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.

In his interview with Kristen Welker of NBC News, President Trump has placed the onus on whether he will request the return of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador squarely upon his Attorney General, who is a defendant in Abrego Garcia's federal habeas corpus action.

Beginning at 28:13 of the interview, Ms. Welker observed, "The Constitution says that everyone, citizens and non-citizens alike, deserve due process. Why not push to let him come back, put all of that evidence in court, let a judge decide?" Trump replied, "Well, I'll leave that to the lawyers, and I'll leave that to the Attorney General of the United States, because they're in . . . I have very capable legal people, John Sauer as you know, all the top people, and I have to rely upon that to interpret whatever is said by the Supreme Court . . . and I would expect that the Attorney General will be doing the right thing." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b4OAlpPhNA

This indicates that at least one defendant has the ability to bring about the petitioner's return to the United States by advising the President to request such return. It's time for an order of civil contempt, perhaps with a brief purge provision to permit prompt compliance, committing Pam Bondi to jail until she directs the President to make a formal demand for Abrego Garcia's immediate return to the President of El Salvador.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not_guilty — If Bondi complies, and formally directs Trump to seek Garcia's return, and no return then follows, what legal activities do you expect to happen next? I expect stalling and evasions from the Roberts Court. Anything, really, except rule-of-law decisions demanding Trump to enforce return.

What do you think should happen if I am proved correct? Capitulation to Trump?

[not guilty]

In 1866 SCOTUS considered in Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1866), whether the President of the United States may be required, by the process of court, to perform a purely ministerial act under a positive law, or may be held amenable, in any case otherwise than by impeachment for crime. The Court answered that question in the negative:

Suppose the bill filed and the injunction prayed for allowed. If the President refuse obedience, it is needless to observe that the court is without power to enforce its process. If, on the other hand, the President complies with the order of the court and refuses to execute the acts of Congress, is it not clear that a collision may occur between the executive and legislative departments of the government? May not the House of Representatives impeach the President for such refusal? And in that case, could this court interfere in behalf of the President, thus endangered by compliance with its mandate, and restrain by injunction the Senate of the United States from sitting as a court of impeachment? Would the strange spectacle be offered to the public world of an attempt by this court to arrest proceedings in that court?

These questions answer themselves.

It is true that a State may file an original bill in this court. And it may be true, in some cases, that such a bill may be filed against the United States. But we are fully satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties; and that no such bill ought to be received by us.

Id., at 500-501.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — It remains unclear to me what judicial activity you think the Roberts Court would entertain? Are you suggesting that it merely cite Mississippi v. Johnson, and wash its hands of the fate of Garcia? And by implication of everyone else Trump might choose to lawlessly deport?

What do you make of insistence that unlawful deportations are no part of a president's official duties? And does Trump v. United States have bearing on that question?

[not guilty]

Federal courts since Mississippi v. Johnson have been loath to issue injunctions binding the President. I don't foresee the present Supreme Court departing from that tradition.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thanks for answering my principal question.

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

Get a room you two.

[Speaking for normal people]

Califronia deported at the very least 300 000 Mexicans in the 30s

[Incunabulum]

This wouldn't be such an act though.

Abrego is in the hands of El Salvador. If they refuse to return him Trump can't order them to. So . . . what then?

What is the court allowed to order the Executive to do? Invade? Because we're getting to Brazilian judiciary levels here.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It is Trump's publicly expressed opinion that if he demanded Garcia's return, Bukele would comply.

[Incunabulum]

And if he doesn't?

Trump's already asked him once, remember?

[Sarcastr0]

You're a big fat sucker if you think that's actually what happened.

[Krayt]

Lawyers and pols are excellent in the construction of facades of acceptable reasoning covering serious constitutional defects, proclaiming, on the surface, honorable rule of law.

Don't you hate that?

[Sarcastr0]

It’s what you do all the time with your compulsive Fundamental Rule bothsidesing.

[David Nieporent]

Trump's already asked him once, remember?

False. He never asked. He doesn't even claim to have asked.

[HazelMeade]

Then all prison flights to El Salvador are unconstitutional.
You can deport people to freedom, but you can't put them in prison without a conviction. And if the inherent structure of this prison flight deal is such that one cannot undo an error, resulting in someone being imprisoned indefinitely without a conviction, then the prison flights are unlawful.

The courts can't *force* El Salvador to release him, but they can sure as fuck say "sending people to prisons in El Salvador without an ironclad mechanism to have them returned is unconstitutional", AND they can also halt payments to the government of El Salvador for holding the other 237 people that were on those flights.

[Kazinski]

"If Bondi complies, and formally directs Trump to seek Garcia's return"

That's pretty wild Path top. Is the AG's authority to "formally direct" the President in Article 2?

Or is there like an Article 10 with the AG's powers in it, or an reconstruction era amendment I missed?

[Commenter_XY]

No, there is, in the words of that noted Team D Philosopher, Jesse Jackson, a way to, "Keep Hope Alive!"

NG wants to see the perp walk, as do I....but for very different reasons.

[not guilty]

I don't for a moment believe that Donald Trump means what he says when he claims that he will "leave that [decision] to the Attorney General of the United States," regardless of what he said to Kristin Welker.

His saying that he would do so, however, leaves Pam Bondi in a precarious position. Bondi is a party to the Abrego Garcia litigation, while Trump is not. Bondi is under an order to "take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0_1.pdf

Trump's ostensible delegation of the decision of whether to demand the release of Abrego Garcia from the President of El Salvador to Ms. Bondi makes her decision of what to advise the President an "available step[] to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia." She is therefore obliged, on pain of contempt, to advise Trump to issue such a demand.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. If you're going to claim that a court has the power to compel the AG to give the President specific advice, you should cite some authority.

2. Trump says he will "leave that [decision] to the Attorney General of the United States," which implies that he might follow the freely-given advice of the AG to seek Garcia's return. But it doesn't follow that Trump would act on such advice if it were compelled by the court, so your basis for issuing such an order goes out the window.

[Kazinski]

That seems to be an available step to effectuate Garcia's return, but honestly making a plane available, providing travel papers, and having someone on call 24 hours a day at the US embassy seems to check all the boxes for 'facilitate'.

But if the judge doesn't think so, she should just come out and say what she expects them to do.

It seems what we have here is a failure to communicate, or perhaps clarify as the Supreme Court would put it.

[Mr. Bumble]

SC heal thyself, when it comes to clarity.

[David Nieporent]

That seems to be an available step to effectuate Garcia's return, but honestly making a plane available, providing travel papers, and having someone on call 24 hours a day at the US embassy seems to check all the boxes for 'facilitate'.

Even if your bad faith interpretation of the word "facilitate" were accurate, the order is not "do the bare minimum to facilitate his return." It's to "take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible." (Emphasis added.) Is what you described "all available steps"? Or just one step?

And moreover, SCOTUS ordered the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from prison, not merely his travel plans to the U.S. How does the purported willingness to make a plane available facilitate his release?

As I analogized a couple of weeks ago, if I said that I had taken all available steps to facilitate my client's release from prison, based solely on my willingness to send an Uber if prison officials voluntarily released him, would that fly? It would not.

[Kazinski]

You know better than that, does your contract only state that you will "facilitate" your clients release?

No, I don't think facilitate accurately describes your obligation, and I don't think your contracts with your clients says you will "effectuate" their release either.

So lets not make inapt analogies.

[Mr. Bumble]

Once again showing why David Notsoimportant is not so important.

[David Nieporent]

The issue in the hypo wasn't what my contractual obligation was. The issue was whether arranging for a contingent Uber could be reasonably be described as taking all available steps to facilitate my client's release and return home.

The answer, which you dodged, is of course no. I didn't request a bail hearing, I didn't post bail or arrange for same, I didn't file a lawsuit or a motion or an appeal, I didn't seek a pardon for him, I didn't do anything; I just passively said that if by some miracle completely unrelated to my utter non-efforts he got out, I'd get him a ride home.

[HazelMeade]

And this is why every senior official of the first Trump administration ended up hating the man, with the only exceptions being those that ended up in legal jeopardy.
This man demands his subordinates do illegal things and put themselves in legal jeopardy.

[Speaking for normal people]

What do you think if he ends up killing his wife --- or is really MS-13.

[HazelMeade]

Then you can try and convict him and then deport him. Duh.

[DrCoke]

There is no scenario in which he will be free in the US. If returned, within minutes he will be on a plane to some third country. He's not going to leave the tarmac. The judge ruled that he could be deported. THAT was his due process. I assure you that he will be deported. Instantly.

I hope he likes the random country he is sent to better than his home in El Salvador. I wonder if he will be able to speak the language?

[HazelMeade]

You have to get a random country to take him first. Maybe Canada?
I could imagine his wife and him filing for asylum in Canada and living a nice life in Toronto. And that gives Mark Carney the opportunity to give Trump a big old fuck you while he's at it. The Canadians would love to be able to accept refugees from the US.

[David Nieporent]

There is no scenario in which he will be free in the US. If returned, within minutes he will be on a plane to some third country.

Even assuming that Trump could successfully sell, "This guy is a violent gang member; would you please take him?" to some third country — a country that Trump has been slapping masive tariffs on because he's a dumbass — that's not how it works. Garcia is entitled to a hearing to contest any plan to send him to a third country. (To be clear, I am not saying he'd prevail; that would depend on specifics. I am saying that he's entitled to a hearing first.)

[HazelMeade]

I expect the courts to continue to not allow any further deportation flights to El Salvador. After all, if those flights indeed put detainees beyond the reach of any legal redress, that would be a direct violation of the fifth amendment.
Either Garcia , and anyone else unlawfully detained, is released, or no more prison flights.

[Kazinski]

Lets talk a little more about "facilitate", I have quoted the Oxford definition a few times, so I won't repeat it again. not after Sarcastro shamed me for cherry picking a questionable source.

So lets move on to the root word of facilitate,
" facile:
adjective
(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial:
"facile generalizations"
Similar:
simplistic
superficial
oversimple
oversimplified

(of a person) having a superficial or simplistic knowledge or approach:
"a man of facile and shallow intellect"
(especially of success in sports) easily achieved; effortless:
"a facile victory" · "he was revealed to be a facile liar"

So if we were to try to apply that to facilitate (which I'm not, because Sarcastro will be along shortly I am sure), you might say when applied to a verb rather than an adjective that would mean making a superficial effort and not trying too hard, which I will admit is not the definition of facilitate, although they do have the same root word. But it does seem to describe the Administration's level of effort, which doesn't seem to please Xinis, although that is what her order required, if even that.

So here is my point:

Trying to cast facilitate as meaning effectuate is a facile argument.

Not that I am trying to cal! anyone here a facile liar, none of it seems effortless, its actually very labored.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, no practical problem with, "facilitate." Just hold Trump's minions in civil contempt until Garcia—and all the other CECOT deportees—get returned.

Let Trump choose at pleasure among whatever options he can imagine to deal with that. If Trump chooses, he can let his Homeland Security Department, State Department, and Justice Department bureaucracy rot in jail, while appointing replacements until he runs out of willing takers.

[Kazinski]

Hold them in contempt for what?

Knowing the meaning of 'facilitate'?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinsky — As I mention below, in contempt for attempting to play a thimble rigger's game with the court.

See? Nothing to do with the meaning of, "facilitate." Trump remains at liberty to define that however he pleases, and to do whatever it pleases him to do based on his own king-like definition. He will just have to figure out a way to get it done with his bureaucracy in jail.

Alternatively, you could stop playing bad-faith games about a constitutional crisis, stemming from a question whether a president enjoys bogus constitutional power to defy a court decision. If you think so, say that forthrightly.

Don't use bad faith instead, to pretend it is a question whether a court has power to say what the law is. Or, come to think of it, go ahead and do that. If you do, that is every bit as much advocacy for a constitutional crisis as support for open court defiance by a president.

[Kazinski]

Its not Trump defining it as he pleases, the standard for courts is to us the dictionary definition, unless its defined by statute.

Now you tell me Lathtrop since you are an educated man, using the dictionary definition of 'facilitate' is he

A)required to call Bukele and ask, or offer an inducement to effectuate Garcia's return?

Or B) do what Bondi already publicly did in Bukele's presence, make it known if he is released we will fly him back to the US?

If you are being honest, you know its B, because that is what facilitate means. A is to 'effectuate' Garcia's return, which is totally up to Trump's unconstrained discretion, which he has declined to exercise.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, as an educated person, I know how foolish it is to suppose a dictionary is a competent source to deliver specialized information beyond the command of the lexicographers who authored that dictionary. I have understood that for more than 50 years, while watching judges, lawyers, and legal bystanders, beclown themselves by lunging to cherry pick dictionaries for their preferred tendentious, but contextually irrelevant, definitions.

Also? You ignored completely that any problem to define, "facilitate," can be left at Trump's discretion, without impairing in the slightest a court's power to punish other administration figures for non-compliance with court orders, under pain of civil contempt.

[Kazinski]

All the judge has to do is clarify her order.

You can't complain about not getting something you won't ask for.

You can't order weak tea and expect the waitress to read your mind and bring you bourbon instead.

[Speaking for normal people]

The court order can use whatever words it likes but the aim of the order is the person involved and that varies wildly even if the word doesn't. Facilitating things for an MS-13 dude in a foreign prison is....well I am sure you know

[Stephen Lathrop]

The judge ordered the Trump administration to supply a person with knowledge of what the administration has done to procure Garcia's release, to answer the court's questions. There is nothing unclear about that. The administration has not complied.

You post comment after comment, consisting of nothing but deflections and red herrings.

[David Nieporent]

All the judge has to do is clarify her order.

She did. Have you read it?

[David Nieporent]

Hint: it's not B.

[bernard11]

What Bondi said is ridiculous.

If someone wants to solve a problem then offering to do something that does not address the problem, or does so in the most trivial way, does facilitate solving it.

[not guilty]

Hold them in civil contempt for willfully failing to take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0_1.pdf

"All" means all. "As soon as possible" means as soon as possible. The Defendants are of course entitled to a hearing as to what steps are available to facilitate the return of the petitioner, but the decision maker there is the woman wearing the black robe.

I would anticipate a finding of civil contempt, with a (brief) interval during which the contemnors can purge the contempt before being jailed until they comply.

[Kazinski]

Here is what he woman in the Black Robe said in court:

"At the same time, the judge said she was not ordering the administration to ask El Salvador's government to return Abrego Garcia - even though she called its refusal to ask for his release "stunning."
"I'm not ordering you to do that," Xinis said. "I don't know if I'll ever be there.""

So I guess "All" doesn't mean that.

Maybe "All" just means within the context of facilitating, which evidently doesn't mean asking for Garcia's return because she says she didn't order that, and is not likely o ever order it.

[not guilty]

Those comments from the bench predated President Trump's NBC News interview which I linked to upthread, which casts what "steps" are "available" in a different (and broader) light. Judge Xinis was in the process of determining what measures to facilitate the Plaintiff's return are in fact available to the Defendants who have been sued.

In trying to shift accountability from himself to Pam Bondi, (who unlike Trump has been sued by Abrego Garcia,) Trump ignored Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Are you suggesting that that step wasn't available when the judge made her comment? If so, why would the judge claim that the admin's failure to take that step was "stunning"?

[Josh R]

Are you really arguing Bondi has already defied Xinis' order because Trump's remarks to Welker establish that her advising Trump to ask El Salvador to release Garcia is an "available step"? No way is that the case without Xinis fist being specific about that step.

But at least I agree with you if that were true, she could issue a contempt order that could not be appealed because the existing order is certainly not a final judgment.

[not guilty]

Has the rock finally sunk to the bottom of the well, Josh?

If a court order is not sufficiently definite to be complied with, that is a defense to contempt, whether civil or criminal. If the Court whose order has disobeyed rejects that defense and imposes civil contempt sanctions on a party, however, that civil contempt order is simply not appealable. Any indefiniteness in the antecedent order goes to the merits, not to appellate jurisdiction.

And federal courts at every level take jurisdictional matters quite seriously.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Let Trump choose at pleasure among whatever options he can imagine to deal with that. "

Maybe he can work out a deal to exchange them for the judge.

And if a judge were actually to jail US cabinet officials until a foreign President did the judge's bidding, such a deal might be justified.

[Malika the Maiz]

Not a fan of this jail-contempt thing SL is pushing in either theory or practice, but I imagine the contempt wouldn’t be based on the compliance by a foreign government but rather the good faith actions of the administration. Like maybe…asking? Or not bragging online that it’s never going to happen?

[Kazinski]

Is 'asking' a synonym for 'facilitate'?

Not in my thesaurus.

If that is what the Judge wants why doesn't she clarify her order and say so, as the Supreme Court directed her to?

The "clean hands" doctrine isn't generally meant to apply to judges, but when she finds contempt for not doing something she doesn't have the guts to explicitly order, she can't expect to be backed up.

And while civil contempt isn't appealable, any attempt to drag Bondi, Noem or any other administration official into her court is.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s not about it being a synonym, it’s about doing something. Facilitate means more than “won’t prevent,” it’s an action verb meaning “to help.”

[David Nieporent]

If that is what the Judge wants why doesn't she clarify her order and say so, as the Supreme Court directed her to?

She did. Why do you keep lying about this?

[Kazinski]

Well if she clarified it then tell me just what the Administration needs to do to satisfy her order.

She seems confused herself:

"At the same time, the judge said she was not ordering the administration to ask El Salvador's government to return Abrego Garcia - even though she called its refusal to ask for his release "stunning."
"I'm not ordering you to do that," Xinis said. "I don't know if I'll ever be there.""

Its stunning they won't do something she hasn't ordered them to do?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-consider-trumps-compliance-with-order-over-wrongly-deported-man-2025-04-15/

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't hold your breath for David Notsoimportant's reply.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You mean everybody is making a big hoop-te-do about how Trump sabotaged his case by saying he could get Garcia back by asking for him, and Xinis explicitly said her order didn't require that?

Do I have that right?

[David Nieporent]

Your quote is from several weeks ago, before Trump stopped pretending he couldn't get Garcia out, and before Trump said that he'd get him out if Bondi advised him to.

At the time, the defendants were still refusing to even tell Xinis what they had done or would do.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The order is also from several weeks ago.

[David Nieporent]

The order is also from several weeks ago.

The order requires that the defendants take "all available steps." If the steps that are available change, then what is required of the defendant changes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're suggesting that that step wasn't available when the judge made her comment? What was the point of the comment?

[Kazinski]

I don't think that works Dave.

If she explicitly tells them:

"I'm not ordering you to do that," Xinis said. "I don't know if I'll ever be there.""

That doesn't seem like a something that changes from day to day. Are you aren't really saying that Trump couldn't have just as easily asked Bukele last month, are you? Nothing has changed about the availability of that course of action, except perhaps that Bukele publicly ruled it out.

[not guilty]

"And while civil contempt isn't appealable, any attempt to drag Bondi, Noem or any other administration official into her court is."

Wrong, Kazinski. The Defendants Nikita Baker, Pamela Bondi, Kenneth Genalo, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Marco Rubio have been brought into court by means of service of process at the outset of the lawsuit. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.3.0.pdf

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).

[Kazinski]

Is that the case when they are sued in their official capacity?

Noem, Bondi, et al, must get sued a half dozen times a day in their official capacity, you aren't really saying a district court judge can require a cabinet official sued in their official capacity to attend court are you?

I'd like to see a cite on that.

[David Nieporent]

Generally speaking, a civil litigant, as opposed to a criminal defendant, is not required to attend court. But a court can order a party to appear, yes.

[not guilty]

"Noem, Bondi, et al, must get sued a half dozen times a day in their official capacity, you aren't really saying a district court judge can require a cabinet official sued in their official capacity to attend court are you?"

Yes, indeed. It rarely becomes necessary because such officials ordinarily appear by counsel only, but the District Court can absolutely require the presence of any litigant.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Can the judge order a President, or his advisors, to ask a foreign President to do something? If that's what the judge is asking the President to do, I'd like to see an articulation of why she thinks she has the power to do that, instead of this too-cute, well, we're telling you to facilitate, but we're not going to say what that requires...

[Malika the Maiz]

Can a President do nothing when ordered to facilitate the return of an illegally deported person?

[Mr. Bumble]

Was the President ordered to facilitate the return?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Malika the Maiz — I am not a wholehearted fan myself. More a fan of some alternative to complete collapse of court authority, under open defiance. Can you think of another alternative?

After all, who would be a fan of constitutional crisis? Maybe some commenters here. Not me. Problem is, constitutional crisis is what we seem to have. Do you think otherwise?

[Kazinski]

I somewhat agree, as a wise man once said very recently:

"Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law”.

I think its a bigger crises when the judiciary isn't following the law, because its their job to say what the law is, not just throw it up on the wall and see if it sticks.

I think Trump is batting about .650 at the Supreme Court this term, the only outright loss was the AEA stay about 2 weeks ago. The Garcia decision was split. And I can't think of another outright loss, but if there is one someone will remind me.

[Malika the Maiz]

I disagree and will use Normal person’s reason below (though, of course, not as he intended): They are co-equal branches. The President's oath is to uphold the Constitution

[Stephen Lathrop]

They are co-equal branches. The President's oath is to uphold the Constitution

Significance for the Presidential oath needs reconsideration, in light of Trump v. United States. In consequence of that decision, neither Congress nor the Judicial branch any longer enjoys equality with the President. Criminal impunity hands the President overwhelming advantage over the others. Nor will history regard that as an unforeseen consequence; it will rightly count Presidential supremacy as the point of the decision.

So, if you think co-equal branches worth preserving, maybe it's Trump v. United States which needs reexamination. I commented previously that unless the Roberts Court finds a way to get rid of Trump v. United States as improperly decided, that case could make it impossible to muster any institutional government defense capable to prevent Trump, or some other President, from overturning American constitutionalism altogether.

Trump v. United States was the most reckless decision in the history of the Court. It may prove a candidate to be the most consequential judicial blunder in the history of post-Enlightenment jurisprudence world-wide.

I suppose Nazi decrees to criminalize academic jobs for Jews might be a speculative candidate for similarly sweeping world-wide consequence, but those were actions with neither a similarly judicial character, nor anything like the same direct effect. That was very much an instance of unforeseeable consequence.

I am not able to think of another case comparable to Trump v. United States. Arguably, Dredd Scott was comparably destructive, or even more destructive, within in the United States, but not world-wide.

Any other candidates for a judicial blunder so fundamental, so egregious, and so broadly consequential?

[not guilty]

No, Kazinski, the Garcia decision was not split. It was a 9-0 loss for the Defendants.

Who was it again who said as to incessant repetition of the Big Lie:

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

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

[Kazinski]

What do.you think the Supreme Court meant when they said:

"The application was granted in part and denied in part"?

It may have been 9-0 but I don't see Xinis or Garcia doing a victory dance.

The Supreme Court eviscerated Xinis, order by removing effectuate, making it toothless, as we are seeing.

[Sarcastr0]

So your theory is that Trump won but the Court kept it secret by hiding it in the semantics.

Pretty silly take.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure that "Sarcastr0 doesn't get it" ≠ "kept it a secret by hiding it". You routinely demonstrate that you can fail to find meanings 'hidden' in simple declarative sentences.

Xinis won at the Court in everything except the point that actually mattered.

[Sarcastr0]

Why would the Supreme Court eviscerated a lower court judge, but not say they did that?

Xinis won at the Court in everything except the point that actually mattered.
This is a weird thing for the Court to not explicitly say.
Good thing you and Kaz are here to study it out (and ignore one of the 2 definitions of facilitate).

[David Nieporent]

What do.you think the Supreme Court meant when they said:

"The application was granted in part and denied in part"?

They meant exactly what they clearly explained: that the order that was being appealed set a deadline for compliance, that the administration asked for that to be stayed, and that SCOTUS had de facto granted that request. But that the substantive portion of the order — that Abrego Garcia's release be facilitated — remained in effect.

[Brett Bellmore]

And what did YOU think they meant by this?

"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."

THAT language is what I meant by "except that point that actually mattered."

[Kazinski]

My theury is that
"The application was granted in part and denied in part".

It modified the order significantly, there is no wiggle in effectuate, there is a ton of wiggle in facilitate.

And the SC made it clear that the district court was quite constrained it what it could order the executive to do.

[David Nieporent]

And the SC made it clear that the district court was quite constrained it what it could order the executive to do.

Remember when SCOTUS ruled, "The district court cannot order the defendants to effectuate Garcia's release because that would exceed its power"? Me neither.

[Life of Brian]

Of course they couldn't form that exact sentence, since they explicitly said they didn't know what Xinis meant by "effectuate."

But you knew that.

[David Nieporent]

I know that they did not in fact "explicitly" say any such thing.

I also know that they explicitly did not tell Xinis to modify her order, as Kazinski seems to mistakenly think they did.

[Life of Brian]

Xinis herself modified it by removing the word "effectuate" rather than clarifying it as SCOTUS ordered, which we can quite logically infer is because she realized that to clarify it would reveal that its scope reached into no-no territory as SCOTUS feared.

So the net effect is the same.

[Kazinski]

I understood what they meant, Xinis apparently too.

But you do you.

However i will conceed explicit overstates it.

[Sarcastr0]

I heard there was a lot more to the opinion than 'what do you mean by effectuate.' Though you, Brett, and Kaz would prefer to pretend otherwise.

The Court doesn't hide eviscerations in mouseholes.

[Speaking for normal people]

They are co-equal branches. The President's oath is to uphold the Constitution and not to take judge's view of COnstitution as his view. I have no qualm about Trump's actions. I have conviction that a bunch of judges are just pollitical hacks that under the eye of normal people would be PUNISHIED for obstruction.

[Incunabulum]

Who enforces a civil contempt order?

The Executive.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Good point. But I expect even U.S. Marshals have to obey the law. Maybe it is time to ask again, does Trump enjoy power to pardon civil contempt?

[not guilty]

No, the President cannot pardon civil contempt. Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 111 (1925).

[Incunabulum]

The law - but not the courts.

The courts authorize their actions, they don't direct them.

[not guilty]

Rule 4.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:

(a) In General. Process—other than a summons under Rule 4 or a subpoena under Rule 45 —must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose. It may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state where the district court is located and, if authorized by a federal statute, beyond those limits. Proof of service must be made under Rule 4( l ) .

(b) Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt. An order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction issued to enforce federal law may be served and enforced in any district. Any other order in a civil-contempt proceeding may be served only in the state where the issuing court is located or elsewhere in the United States within 100 miles from where the order was issued.

Judge Xinis can appoint personnel other than the U.S. Marshal's Service to execute a body attachment or other process upon a contemnor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the US Marshal's Service (and USSS) can use deadly force to prevent the same. At least as to the POTUS, I think the USSS could legally shoot the judge.

[David Nieporent]

At least as to the POTUS, I think the USSS could legally shoot the judge.

Yes, but that's because you're retarded.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — Thank you for that. Helpful.

[Life of Brian]

Under the plain language of the rule you quoted, subsection (a) says she can specifically appoint someone to serve the order. Reading that same appointment power into the enforcement of the order under subsection (b) is just the latest and greatest episode of wishcasting by you and the rest of the "get 'im" crowd.

[Incunabulum]

Who appointed that person? You're excerpt doesn't say.

Odds are it's still the executive.

Also 'serve' an order and arrest someone are not the same action.

[not guilty]

Uh, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, per Rule 1 thereof, "govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81." The District Court makes the appointment.

Rule 81(a)(4) provides that such rules apply to proceedings for habeas corpus and for quo warranto to the extent that the practice in those proceedings:

(A) is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases; and

(B) has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions.

The instant habeas corpus action is not brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 or 2255.

And I did not "excerpt" Rule 4.1. I quoted it in full.

An order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction issued to enforce federal law is "served" by taking the contemnor into custody. It amounts functionally to a body attachment.

[Life of Brian]

An order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction issued to enforce federal law is "served" by taking the contemnor into custody.

You're still repeating this? Rule 4.1(b) separately recites the service and enforcement of a contempt order, as I pointed out this morning.

You know and I know you have no support for this -- even Erwin Chemerinsky, certainly no stranger to edgy arguments, reluctantly threw in the towel on this point:

But the hard truth for those looking to the courts to rein in the Trump administration is that the Constitution gives judges no power to compel compliance with their rulings — it is the executive branch that ultimately enforces judicial orders. If a president decides to ignore a judicial ruling, the courts are likely rendered impotent.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Life of Brian — Perhaps Chemerinsky underestimates Court power. If a Court finds a President on an unlawful course, the Court at least has power to punish with contempt any of the President's lieutenants who continue that course with the President. After that, expect the President himself to be at least less potent, if not impotent alike with the Court.

Given mutual impotence, which contestant in any such standoff can best abide inaction? A Court is likely better at inaction than a President is positioned to be.

Hamilton in Federalist 70 praised "energy and dispatch," as important virtues in a single-person executive. A President on an unlawful course, and deprived of energy and dispatch on account of it, will find himself soon in political trouble.

No such worries apply to the Courts. If a Court is rendered impotent, as Chemerinsky says, has anything really changed? Potency has never been on the list of virtues for the, "least dangerous," branch. It is all the same to a judge if her merits require a lifetime to measure. As we have all seen in the case of Biden, it can take no more than a bad hour or two to break a presidency.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, there are definitely academics that are pushing for the courts to expand their power in this way. (I've not exhaustively looked, but I would be a bit surprised if any of those thoughtful, chin-stroking, gotta-save-the-nation exercises predate November 8, 2024. Thus, the usual and generally unheeded admonition applies: "are you thinking past this perceived crisis, and is this really the rule you want to apply down the road when you're back in power again?")

But that's an entirely different subject than their current power, which NG misrepresented so badly he's apparently not even going to try to defend it.

[HazelMeade]

The courts can do better than that. They can hold that the deal Trump made with Bukele to hold US deportees in CECOT is unlawful, unless there is a mechanism to ensure the return of anyone sent there in error.

Either return Garcia, and anyone else held unlawfully there, or the deal is off. Sure the courts can't "conduct foreign policy", but they can sure as fuck say what conditions can be imposed on deals with foreign governments for housing US prisoners.

So Trump then has to decide: Does he want to keep people imprisoned unlawfully, or does he want to retain the ability to ship any people to prisons in El Salvador.

[David Nieporent]

They can hold that the deal Trump made with Bukele to hold US deportees in CECOT is unlawful, unless there is a mechanism to ensure the return of anyone sent there in error.

In another case, the administration submitted an affidavit setting forth its position — as I patiently and then less patiently tried to explain to our MAGA sycophants here — that the whole "He's an El Salvadoran citizen in El Salvador" is bullshit. It takes the position that anyone it sends to El Salvador, regardless of that person's citizenship, is no longer in their custody and therefore it is powerless to get that person back. (The affidavit didn't explicitly say "including U.S. citizens," but the logic and legalities are the same: the person is no longer in U.S. custody, and therefore the U.S. can't get them back.)

[HazelMeade]

Hilariously, even though they are *paying* for their imprisonment. Just stop paying until El Salvador returns them!

[Malika the Maiz]

What were those definitions? OED meanings seem paywalled these days. I did see Cambridge defines as
“to make (something) easier
programs that facilitate access to health care
: such as
a
: to help bring (something) about”

If someone hasn’t even asked to bring something about while making repeated statements “that this isn’t going to happen” doesn’t that seem like a bad faith effort to facilitate that thing happening?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Where's the bad faith? She's made clear that she doesn't want him back, and she's not going to do anything that the court can't order her to do.

[Malika the Maiz]

Let’s say you were going through a business dispute or divorce and a judge ordered you to facilitate Z, then you started posting on X “Z is never going to happen.” You don’t think the judge could conclude bad faith?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What level of good faith do you think is required here? Do you think the order to facilitate his return requires Bondi to advise the President to make a formal request to have him returned, if she doesn't think he should be returned?

This type of thing is one reason I think Xinis failed to honor SCOTUS's mandate to clarify her order "with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

[Malika the Maiz]

I notice you didn’t answer my question. I’ll repost: Let’s say you were going through a business dispute or divorce and a judge ordered you to facilitate Z, then you started posting on X “Z is never going to happen.” You don’t think the judge could conclude bad faith?

[TwelveInchPianist]

A judge can conclude whatever he wants. In any event, in normal cases judges routinely get away with stuff that would get them sent to CECOT if they tried it on the AG.

But again, what are the criteria to find what you're calling "bad faith" in this context?

But to answer your question, no, I don't think a judge could find that I was acting in bad faith solely because I claimed that the thing he ordered me to facilitate was never going to happen.

[Malika the Maiz]

“what are the criteria to find what you're calling "bad faith" in this context?”

Doing nothing (facilitate is a verb, it requires something more than “won’t prevent”) and then going out of your way to publicly brag the event you’ve been ordered to facilitate isn’t going to happen.

Again, I think in most other contexts, a divorce proceeding, a business dispute, etc., if one party is ordered to facilitate X and then takes no affirmative steps to help cause X to happen *and* starts bragging publicly that X is never going to happen that would easily warrant a conclusion of bad faith in facilitation of X by that party.

This is all very much a silly technicality though since even most defenders of the administration here concede that if Trump wanted Bukele to release or return the guy it would happen. He’s hiding behind a technicality to not take steps to address his illegal action here because he doesn’t want to. That’s, as I argue above, very good grounds to legally find bad faith but as a moral/political matter it’s pretty much the definition of bad faith.

[Drewski]

I think the order requires, at a minimum, the DoJ formally notify the appropriate El Salvadorian authorities of their "error," inquire about the process necessary to effect his release, and offer to actively facilitate such release (i.e., have a plane and escort ready at their convenience). These seem to be necessary steps that fall under the concept of "facilitation." I think they're also on the hook for paying reasonable costs of this.

I think the DoJ could be, but hasn't been, ordered to formally request his release or even litigate the matter in El Salvadorian courts.

You seem to think Trump and Bukele are kings, embodying the state, that must be personally involved in and approve every act. There's no reason for them to be involved at all except for their "obstruction as political theater" game. Trump can't be ordered to get involved, and there's no practical way to punish him for obstructing, so maybe let's think in terms of the actual parties.

[Kazinski]

"I think the DoJ could be, but hasn't been, ordered to formally request his release or even litigate the matter in El Salvadorian courts."

Then why doesn't Xinis go ahead and order that to 'clarify' what is expected?

DN seems to think its already clear, I'm glad you seem to agree with me that it isn't.

[Drewski]

You're complaining that Xinis isn't micromanaging the DoJ?

[David Nieporent]

This type of thing is one reason I think Xinis failed to honor SCOTUS's mandate to clarify her order "with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

She did in fact do the exact thing you pretend she didn't do.

[David Nieporent]

What level of good faith do you think is required here?

There aren't levels of good faith; it's a binary thing.

Do you think the order to facilitate his return requires Bondi to advise the President to make a formal request to have him returned,

Is that an "available step"? If so, it would certainly be encompassed by the words "all available steps." So, yes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Is that an "available step"? If so, it would certainly be encompassed by the words "all available steps." So, yes."

I suppose if Bukele said he'd release Garcia if Bondi converted to Bhuddism, you'd say that the order requires her to convert to Bhuddism.

The fact that Xinis's order can be construed to order the AG to give specific foreign policy advice to the President illustrates what you keep denying, that Xinis failed to clarify her order with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.

[Kazinski]

See there you go again Dave, pretending that Xinis's order encompasses an obligation to ask El Salvador for Garcia's release.

"I'm not ordering you to do that," Xinis said. "I don't know if I'll ever be there.""

That's an available step, but she isn't ordering it, because she can't.

Maybe because its an available step to effectuate his release, but its not an available step to facilitate it.

[Kazinski]

If you said "Z is never going to happen" 'but if it does I'll get it notorized and file it at the count clerks office' then I'd say they would be totally in the clear.

Which is about what Bondi said.

[Speaking for normal people]

NO, a divorce is two people pitted against each other , this is a social deviant pitted against every American citizen. My neighbors, co-workers etc want HIM OUT AND GONE

[Malika the Maiz]

Sorry to inform you, but your neighbors and the President have to follow the law. His deportation was an illegal act.

[Frank Drackman]

Barry Osama isn't President anymore

[Speaking for normal people]

Government by the people , for the people
We want that type GONE

[Malika the Maiz]

You may be familiar with a popular logo that says, essentially, duck your feelings. You feel strongly his type should be gone. That’s nice. And I’m not against his lawful deportation. But government officials should follow the law and the administration did not here. I’m sorry your feelings are not triggered by the federal government using force in an illegal act.

[Kazinski]

Google licensed the Oxford Dictionary so that's what you get when you google the definition.

But using your example:
"programs that facilitate access to health care"

Do you think that means calling up the Dr. and making the appointment for you? And sending someone around to drive you to the appointment, and make sure you wake up on time to get there?

Or just making an 800 number available so when you call you can get through after waiting 15 minutes on hold?

[Malika the Maiz]

It means more than not locking the door to the doctor’s office. And if you posted “getting a doctor’s appointment is never going to happen” a bunch it seems a pretty bad faith facilitation is occurring.

[Kazinski]

Bondi didn't say that, but Bukele did, that seems pretty authoritative to me.

[Malika the Maiz]

Your ignorance of what happened is not a “me” problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/18/kilmar-abrego-garcia-wife-interview

[SRG2]

Etymology does not prove meaning. Cf "thing", "awful", "artificial", etc.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's time for an order of civil contempt...committing Pam Bondi to jail until she directs the President to make a formal demand for Abrego Garcia's immediate return to the President of El Salvador."

1. The AG doesn't "direct" the President, the President directs the AG.

2. You think courts have the power to order the President's advisors to give him specific advice? And even if they did, why would the President accept such advice?

[not guilty]

TiP, what I think, or what you think, is irrelevant. The Attorney General is a party Defendant in the Abrego Garcia habeas corpus litigation. She is under an order of the District Court, approved by a unanimous Supreme Court, to "take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0_1.pdf

The President has said on national television, "I'm relying on the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, who's very capable of doing a great job. Because I'm not involved in the legality or the illegality -- I have lawyers to do that. . . . Well, I have the power to ask for [Abrego Garcia] to come back if I'm instructed by the Attorney General that it's legal to do so. But the decision as to whether or not he should come back will be the head of El Salvador. He's a very capable man." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b4OAlpPhNA (beginning at 26.41). Trump said that he will "leave that to the lawyers and leave that [decision] to the Attorney General of the United States." Id., beginning at 28:25.

Trump may or may not be sincere when he says that. But his saying that means that an instruction from the Attorney General to the President to demand Abrego Garcia's return is indeed an "available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible." If Ms. Bondi declines to give that instruction, Judge Xinis can throw her ass in jail until she does.

Trump is hoist with his own petard. W. Shakespeare, Hamlet act 3, scene 4.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So basis for the claim that the court can order the AG to give specific advice to the President, and no reason to think that the President would accept such advice if it were compelled by the courts.

Other than that, great comment.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Judge Xinis can throw her ass in jail until she does."

Keep hope alive!

At least your sexual fantasy is directed towards a woman this time , unlike your years long homoerotic desire to have Trump in prison. Progress!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Just speaking for myself, I'd like to see Trump in prison for the benefit of his cellmate's "homoerotic desire."

[not guilty]

Bob, I don't have "sexual fantas(ies)" about law or politics. And I don't have "homoerotic desire" on any topic whatsoever.

Why do those thoughts come so readily to your mind, Bob?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Bob, I don't have "sexual fantas(ies)" about law or politics. And I don't have "homoerotic desire" on any topic whatsoever."

That's exactly what someone who has sexual fantasies about law and politics and a homoerotic desire to see Trump in prison would say!

[BrotherMovesOn]

"That's exactly what someone who has sexual fantasies about law and politics and a homoerotic desire to see Trump in prison would say!"

"That's" is also exactly something that a truthfully speaking person would say.
Although I appreciate the comedic line.
Is that Python? Probably many fathers.

[Bwaaah]

I find it odd for NG to have felt the need to write such a "truthful" and serious defense to an obviously unserious charge. One shouldn't underestimate how tantalizing the combination of vulgarity, power and orange hair can be for people of certain proclivities.

[not guilty]

I was curious as to why the MAGA cult commenters were sexualizing a non-sexual matter.

[Kazinski]

"This indicates that at least one defendant has the ability to bring about the petitioner's return to the United States by advising the President to request such return."

So its your position the District Court judge can jail the attorney general based on the legal advice she gives the President?

Because I don't think the AG has authority herself to contact El Salvador and ask for Garcia back.

If she tells Trump "the District Court judge cannot order you to ask for Garcia back", is it your position that even though Bondi is right, she can be jailed for telling Trump what she thinks the law is?

It would be pretty absurd that the judge won't order Trump.to ask for Garcia back because she doesn't have the authority, but would try to jail Bondi for telling Trump that Sinus doesn't have that authority.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So its your position the District Court judge can jail the attorney general based on the legal advice she gives the President?

Given Trump's own insistence, that seems to be his position.

My position would be different. I would jail the attorney general because playing a thimble rigger's game with a court is contemptuous.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you realize the precedent of a judge having the authority to specify what legal advice a lawyer may give her client?

[Michael P]

Kazinski does. The left, apparently not.

[not guilty]

When a judge tells a lawyer, "Direct your party-litigant client to do thus and such," the lawyer ignores that directive at his peril.

If the lawyer conveys that direction to the client, and the client nevertheless refuses, that presents an issue between the Court and the litigant. If the lawyer fails to convey the directive, the issue is between the Court and the lawyer.

If you had ever tried a lawsuit you would realize that, Dr. Ed 2.

[David Nieporent]

Do you realize the precedent of a judge having the authority to specify what legal advice a lawyer may give her client?

If I'm at a hearing and the court issues an order to turn over certain documents to the other side, and I advise my client "Oh, if you just destroy them now then you can't turn them over," I would expect to go to be fined, lose my law license, and possibly go to jail. Even if I feel very strongly that the judge's order was wrong. Lawyers are not free to give whatever advice we feel like.

[Kazinski]

Absolutely, but that's not what we are talking about here.

You and Not Guilty seem to go back and forth about what Xinis is asking Trump to do. Has she ordered him to pick up the phone and call Bukele or not? Sometimes you say no. Now you say if Bondi says the answer is no she is in contempt. Make up your minds.

When Bondi tells Trump he is under no obligation under Xinis order to ask Bukele for Garcia's return then she is expressing her understanding of the judges order to the president, which is her duty.

You aren't claiming Xinis order requires Trump to ask for Garcia back are you? Xinis can't do that or we will be back at the Supreme Court.

So you and NG and Xinis want to play games that won't define what she means by facilitate, claiming its clear and pretending anything short of actuality effectuating Garcia's return is contempt. When it doesn't mean that at all.

Bondi's advice to Trump is legally sound: 'she can't order you to ask El Salvador to return Garcia, and if she does order that we will quash it with another emergency appeal.'

And Bondi is in no legal jeopardy for telling Trump: 'You have no legal obligation to do what the judge wants you to do, your only obligation is to do what she has clearly ordered you to do.'

[Josh R]

Of course Xinis has not yet ordered Bondi to instruct Trump to demand El Salvador to return Garcia. But, not guilty argues that Xinis should do that, and if Bondi refuses, Xinis should go to jail under a civil contempt order which cannot be appealed on the merits until Xinis issues a final judgment.

My problem with not guilty's claim continues to be such an order would be tantamount to a final judgment and thus subject to appeal without Bondi going to jail if she refuses. The essence of this litigation is what exactly must the Trump administration do to facilitate Garcia's return? So, if Xinis decides Bondi must instruct Trump to demand Garcia's release, that is a decision on the merits of the case, totally unlike a refusal to hand over documents that are needed to reach the merits. On the other hand, if Bondi refused to cooperate with the discovery Xinis has ordered, that would grounds for civil contempt resulting in jail time with no ability to appeal.

[Kazinski]

I don't think that's what NG is arguing.

He knows if Xinis does that the order will be appealed again and Trump will win the appeal.

Xinis is like the wife who won't come out and tell you what she wants, but you sure as hell better deliver it.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, Judge Xinis has ordered the Defendants, including Pam Bondi, to "take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0_1.pdf

As I have explained in greater detail upthread, President Trump has told Kristin Welker that he will abide by what Ms. Bondi advises him to do regarding requesting the return of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

Ergo, Ms. Bondi advising the President to request such return is an "available step" which Ms. Bondi declines to take at her peril. She would be entitled to a hearing on that issue, but if Judge Xinis finds as fact that that "step" was and is "available" to facilitate the Petitioner's return -- which it plainly is -- such declination would be contumacious.

President Trump has put his Attorney General in quite an untenable position.

[Kazinski]

Not if Xinis explicitly told them she is not ordering that action:

"I'm not ordering you to do that," Xinis said. "I don't know if I'll ever be there.""

It doesn't seem like asking for Garcia's return is considered "facilitating". She is going to have to re-clarify her order, if she wants them to take that step.

[David Nieporent]

Of course Xinis has not yet ordered Bondi to instruct Trump to demand El Salvador to return Garcia.

She has already ordered Bondi to "take all available steps." Is that an available step?

Before Trump said that he would do what Bondi said, Bondi could've told the court, "I don't know what else to do." But now that she knows Trump said that, she can't pretend he didn't.

My problem with not guilty's claim continues to be such an order would be tantamount to a final judgment and thus subject to appeal without Bondi going to jail if she refuses.

Even if you weren't wrong about what was appealable, "subject to appeal without going to jail if she refuses" would still be wrong. For some reason, many people hold to the mistaken belief that all district court orders are just advisory until a higher court has weighed in. That's not the case. If Bondi refuses and Xinis holds her in contempt, she goes to jail ASAP, not after appeal. (Yes, of course an appellate court can stay a district court's order pending appeal. But that's not as a matter of right.)

[not guilty]

"(Yes, of course an appellate court can stay a district court's order pending appeal. But that's not as a matter of right.)"

That is correct, provided that the appellate court has jurisdiction of the appeal. Civil contempt by a party litigant is appealable, but not prior to final judgment. A request for a stay would not be considered according to the ordinary factors specified in Nkem v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (“(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies”), but the applicant would have to meet the more stringent criteria for a writ of mandamus. Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (2004):

First, the party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires;
Second, the petitioner must satisfy the burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.”
Third, even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.

Id., at 380-381 (some internal quotation marks omitted).

[Josh R]

I did not see "all available steps" in the order. It instead said Trump must facilitate Garcia's return. The judge is now in the process of discovery to see what steps have been taken. After that, she could issue an order that Trump must take specific steps in order to satisfy facilitating Garcia's return.

It makes little sense that such an order would not be a final judgment that could be appealed. All of the issues will have been ultimately disposed of at that point.

[Kazinski]

Its just a game they are playing that "all available steps to facilitate" means effectuate, if they keep repeating it.

Its like the tourist asking a non-english speaker something they don't understand, and just repeating the same phrase louder.

At least they are admitting now that they expect Trump to ask for Garcia's return, but Xinis can't or it will go back up to the Supreme Court again as you say.

[Josh R]

I expect Xinis to issue an order that Trump must take certain steps, Trump will refuse, no one will be going to jail while the order is appealed, and I have no idea what SCOTUS will rule.

The one outcome that is needed in this case even if SCOTUS says Trump need do nothing for Garcia, is a strong enough penalty so that it does not happen again.

[Josh R]

I now see the "all available steps" were in her amended order after SCOTUS weighed in. If the "available steps" include anything one can think of (e.g., taking tariffs off the table), then the defendants are defying the order no matter what they do (they can't possibly take "all available steps"). Basic logic tells us they are not in defiance until Xinis specifies what steps they must take and they refuse.

And again, once she does that, all issues will have been disposed of leading to an appeal (and yes, that appeal is not a right, but the point is it can be granted (and will be in this case), whereas not guilty argues there is no jurisdiction to grant an appeal).

I will bet my bottom dollar that no one will be going to jail in a civil contempt order based on what "facilitate" means in this case without first having an appeal heard (almost certainly all the way up to SCOTUS).

[David Nieporent]

I did not see "all available steps" in the order.

Well, did you read it? It's in the very first paragraph of Judge Xinis's April 10 order, which is only three paragraphs long:

The Supreme Court’s April 10, 2025 decision in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.—–, No. 24A949, affirmed this Court’s Order at ECF No. 21 (the “Order”), and directed that on remand, this Court clarify its use of the term “effectuate,” according proper deference to the Executive Branch in its conduct of foreign affairs. See Slip Op. at 2. To this end, the Court hereby amends the Order to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.

(Emphasis, other than the capitalization of "DIRECT," added.)

[not guilty]

Josh, Judge Xinis's order of April 10, issued just hours after the SCOTUS order earlier the same day, states:

The Supreme Court’s April 10, 2025 decision in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.—–, No. 24A949, affirmed this Court’s Order at ECF No. 21 (the “Order”), and directed that on remand, this Court clarify its use of the term “effectuate,” according proper deference to the Executive Branch in its conduct of foreign affairs. See Slip Op. at 2. To this end, the Court hereby amends the Order to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0_1.pdf

[TwelveInchPianist]

"She has already ordered Bondi to "take all available steps." Is that an available step?"

Sending in a SEAL team is also an available step, but you guys keep insisting she hasn't ordered Trump to do that.

[David Nieporent]

Sending in a SEAL team is also an available step,

It's not a step available to Bondi.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Is she required to "direct" the President to send in a SEAL team?

[not guilty]

"Sigh. Is she required to 'direct' the President to send in a SEAL team?"

If Donald Trump were foolish enough to proclaim on national television, "If the Attorney General directs me to send in a SEAL team, I will send in a SEAL team!", your question would then become germane, TIP.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Such a step would facilitate his release, even if it didn't effectuate it.

[Kazinski]

Seal Team 6 sounds like effectuate not facilitate, so that's a hard no.

But I guess they are still pretending they are synonyms.

[not guilty]

Josh R, when one who is honestly mistaken is corrected, he either ceases to be mistaken, or ceases to be honest.

We had this discussion on Friday's open thread. A final judgment "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); United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338, 344 (4th Cir. 2010). It must be a "judgment" in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be "final" in the sense that it is "an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action." Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980).

The Plaintiffs in this action claim that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is entitled to be returned to the United States from El Salvador, where he is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT). The Defendants dispute that Abrego Garcia is entitled to that relief. The specific relief sought by the Plaintiffs is that the District Court enter an order:

a) Declaring that Defendants’ actions, as set forth herein, violated the laws of the United States and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
b) Immediately ordering Defendants to immediately cease compensating the Government of El Salvador for its detention of Plaintiff Abrego Garcia;
c) Immediately ordering Defendants to immediately request that the Government of El Salvador release Plaintiff Abrego Garcia from CECOT and deliver him to the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador;
d) Should the Government of El Salvador decline such request, ordering Defendants to take all steps reasonably available to them, proportionate to the gravity of the ongoing harm, to return Plaintiff Abrego Garcia to the United States;
e) Granting Plaintiffs costs and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act; and
f) Granting such other relief at law and in equity as justice may require.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.0_3.pdf

There will be no final judgment unless and until the District Court enters an order determining that the Plaintiffs are conclusively entitled (or not entitled) to each aspect of the relief sought. In the meantime, "The rule is settled . . . 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." Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U.S. 105, 107 (1936); Myers, 593 F.3d at 344.

Judge Xinis has issued a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a), finding among other things that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The operative word there is "preliminary." She has not issued any declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. She has neither issued nor denied permanent injunctive relief.

Why do you continue to flog this dead horse?

[Josh R]

I replied in that thread that a) has already been disposed of, b), c) and d) will be disposed of in any order by Xinis that Trump has not sufficiently facilitated Garcia's return, and there is no way e) and f) are going to be construed as not being disposed of in order to force Bondi to jail without an appeal.

[not guilty]

I know what you replied there, Josh.

You lied, or you at best were sadly mistaken about what constitutes a declaratory judgment. Judge Xinis has issued no declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. She has issued a preliminary injunction, which (absent express conversion to a permanent injunction, which has not occurred here) can no more be a final order than a circle can be a rectangle or red can be green.

The same is necessarily true of any future order that Trump has not sufficiently facilitated Garcia's return, which by its very nature would leave further issues to be adjudicated.

Incessant repetition of the Big Lie didn't work in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, and it doesn't work any better on these blog comment threads.

[Josh R]

The Big Lie? We are both expressing opinions. And mine remains that once the scope of what is required to facilitate Garcia's return is given, that leaves no further issues to be adjudicated.

[not guilty]

No, Josh, we are not "both expressing opinions."

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said in a 1983 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

I would add that opinions are like assholes. Everyone has (at least) one. They often stink. And one should not offer his opinion nor his asshole casually.

[tylertusta]

Bondi informs Trump of the Court's demand. Trump says no.

What then, Mr. Guilty?

[David Nieporent]

We'll cross that bridge on the off chance we ever come to that. Are you calling Trump a liar when he said he'd do it if Bondi told him he had to?

[tylertusta]

I await Mr. Guilty's reply.

[Kazinski]

The court's demand to do exactly what?

That's what I want to hear from our resident legal geniuses.

But don't expect them to answer other than say facilitate and mean effectuate.

[tylertusta]

I agree. Their evasiveness gives the game away.

[not guilty]

"Bondi informs Trump of the Court's demand. Trump says no."

In that situation, if Bondi had any integrity, she would resign. But then, if she had any integrity, Donald Trump would not have appointed her, so I suppose she would just hunker down like a mule in a hailstorm, as Lyndon Johnson was wont to say.

The upshot would be that the Department of Justice would lose credibility with the federal court system -- but that is likely to happen wholly apart from this situation.

[Kazinski]

No, because the Supreme Court has plainly told the judge she can not order that without clearly saying so, and if she does clearly say so then it will be appealed.

Bondi can't be held in contempt for telling Trump what we all already know, that the judge has no authority to order Trump, or anyone else, to request Garcia's return from El Salvador.

And you know that.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, you are squirming like a worm on a hot brick to avoid discussing the import of what your hero President Trump said during his NBC News interview. As I wrote upthread:

The President has said on national television, "I'm relying on the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, who's very capable of doing a great job. Because I'm not involved in the legality or the illegality -- I have lawyers to do that. . . . Well, I have the power to ask for [Abrego Garcia] to come back if I'm instructed by the Attorney General that it's legal to do so. But the decision as to whether or not he should come back will be the head of El Salvador. He's a very capable man." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b4OAlpPhNA (beginning at 26.41). Trump said that he will "leave that to the lawyers and leave that [decision] to the Attorney General of the United States." Id., beginning at 28:25.

Trump may or may not be sincere when he says that. But his saying that means that an instruction from the Attorney General to the President to demand Abrego Garcia's return is indeed an "available step[] to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible." If Ms. Bondi declines to give that instruction, Judge Xinis can throw her ass in jail until she does.

(Typographical error corrected.)

Easy peasy. Pam Bondi's dilemma is of Donald Trump's making.

[tylertusta]

So, that's it? Trump says no, Bondi may-or-may-not resign, and the certain courts will continue to think what they're thinking with the DOJ as a whole.

Nothing else in this case? What happens then? Dismiss the case?

[Kazinski]

Trump got a big win on Saturday on the VOA (Widakuswara v Lake) case where the DC Circuit court rulled granted a stay in the injunction that ordered the Trump administration to rehire about 1000 federal employees and 600 contractors, and distribute funds to the NGO's operating Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Network.

The majority decision granted the stay citing (the late) Department of Education v California that said the APA can not be used to litigate contract disputes between the Federal government and grantees.

And that employment disputes must be handled by administratively by the OSC an MSPB, not in district courts.

Interesting that the major opinion cited Dept of Ed 4 times, but only got a brief mention in the dissent. If you recall that decision was in April when Roberts didn't join the per curium, but Barrett did, and the the three liberals dissented. It said ending the grants for Teacher DEI training could not be litigated via the APA.but only by the Court of Federal C!aims.

Here is the decision from Yesterday.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41991/gov.uscourts.cadc.41991.01208736131.0.pdf

Be interesting what happens next, do they take it en banc, or do the leave it as DC circuit precedent?

If they take it en banc then it could be a short-lived victory, they may not want the SC to backstop Dept of Ed v California, and take the APA completely out of play for similar disputes in the other circuits.

[Malika the Maiz]

A lot of people here ridiculed Sotomayer when she during an oral argument wildly misstated the number of children in “serious condition” with COVID 19 as 100,000 when the correct number was nearer to 5,000. There were lots of comments insultingly maligning her intelligence.

So what do those people think of Trump’s wildly incorrect statement that he had brought egg prices down “93, 94 percent” meaning eggs would be something like 40 cents per dozen? Or, maybe better, AG Bondi’s laughable statement that the administration’s fentanyl seizures in the first 100 days had saved “258 million lives” (around three quarters of the US population)?

https://reason.com/2025/05/02/pam-bondis-absurd-claim-about-fentanyl-overdoses-epitomizes-the-illogic-of-the-war-on-drugs/

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can't speak to Bondi's math, but what I have seen done is volume of captured fentanyl divided by the LD50 volume figure and saying that is the number of people whom the captured fentanyl could have killed, whose lives were saved, or some variant thereof.

It's a defensible argument because LD50 is the "official" definition of a fatal dose, although it really isn't -- LD50 stands for "Lethal Dose for 50%" or *half* will die (and the other half not). It also assumes a one-time use and not repeated uses of smaller doses -- it's like presuming that the entire half gallon of Barcardi will be consumed all at once and that would get into LD-50 range as well...

But Bondi was in diapers when government officials started doing this, along with calculating a cash value if the seized drugs were sold retail on the street. If you want to go after her for this, you gotta also go after Janet Reno, John Mitchell, and everyone else.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s ridiculous, not defensible, as the linked article discusses.

[grb]

Malika the Maiz : "It’s ridiculous, not defensible...."

And that's not the half of it. Because the day before Bondi's “258 million lives” statement, she claimed in a social media post that Trump had saved "119 million lives". Which means he saved 139 million people overnight!

Or (alternate theory), someone thought the 119, 000, 000 number was too small a lie to adequately fluff Trump's ego. That's the other possibility....

[Kazinski]

Its my position the should legalize fentanyl, and heroin, and oxycontin, but make sure the doses through legal channels are precise and not fatal.

It would be nice if making it illegal actually worked, but I don't think even 5% of the people who are looking for it can't find it quicker and cheaper than a watered down margarita at a Mexican restaurant.

[Malika the Maiz]

That’s my position too, but it also doesn’t answer my question here at all.

[Speaking for normal people]

Now there is a really bad and unscientific idea you have.
"but make sure the doses through legal channels are precise and not fatal" in the matter of killing babies and mothers what has the legal channel done???????????????????????

Abortion pill’ found to have ‘severe adverse effects’ for 1 in 10 women, study finds
Melissa Rudy
Mon, April 28, 2025

AND

Groundbreaking study finds abortion pill 22 times more dangerous than FDA says
By Michael Foust
NEWS
28 April 2025

IT CRUSHES ME THAT GODAWFUL STUPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU SAY SUCH SHTLOAD THINGS

If could be proved to have a mind you would be an enemy of humanity

[not guilty]

"Its my position the [sic] should legalize fentanyl, and heroin, and oxycontin, but make sure the doses through legal channels are precise and not fatal."

Two of the three are already legal, controlled substances.

[Armchair]

Fentanyl is legal. It's also extraordinarily dangerous.

Let's give a comparison. The LD50 (dose at which 50% of people die) for VX nerve gas is 5-10 mg...dermal. The LD50 in monkeys for fentanyl (humans isn't known because...ethics) is 0.03 mg/kg. For a 70 kilo human, that's 2.1 mg. And fentanyl can be absorbed through the skin.

Legal fentanyl, without restrictions, would be like legal VX nerve gas.

[Michael P]

The linked article says that Bondi's math is better than precedent because it de-rates for impurities. Otherwise, the article fully reflects why my wife derisively calls Reason the "Legalize Crack" magazine.

[Malika the Maiz]

“says that Bondi's math is better than precedent”

lol, that’s one way to spin “absurd” and “risible!”

[jb]

"I can't speak to Bondi's math, but what I have seen done is volume of captured fentanyl divided by the LD50 volume figure and saying that is the number of people whom the captured fentanyl could have killed, whose lives were saved, or some variant thereof."

Yes, I'm sure that is what she did. Which is obviously stupid. Since you think this sort of math is common, can you point to other officials making equally stupid statements using the same logic?

[ducksalad]

The equivalent would be someone pointing out that the US ammunition industry produces 9 billion rounds per year. Therefore, if we banned the manufacture of ammunition, we would save 9 billion lives.

I actually did see a person on the left claim once that 70 million handguns in the US (their number was off) would eventually kill 70 million people. But it was an anonymous poster on a comment thread, not the Attorney General of the United States.

[Speaking for normal people]

I wonder what any side would say to explain why we have far more guns than people !!!

There are approximately 398.5 million firearms in possession in the U.S.

I approve of that by the way. The math view of morality is the kind of thing Libertarianism leads to.

[ducksalad]

Actually, that one's not hard.

Unlike vacuum cleaners, when you a get a new gun, the old one typically doesn't get thrown into the trash and crushed in the landfill.

I'd guess the majority of those 398 million firearms haven't been fired or even checked/cleaned in years.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So what do those people think of Trump’s wildly incorrect statement...[o]r...AG Bondi’s laughable statement..."

They're about on par.

[Incunabulum]

We don't,t actually expect Presidents to know what they're talking about - see . . . oh, the last 60 years of them - while we do expect judges to be more careful.

Judges lay the groundwork for how badly government can screw things up.

[Malika the Maiz]

You have a nice low bar for Presidents. But how about AGs?

[Incunabulum]

Bondi has made herself look foolish a couple times. So did all the others.

[Malika the Maiz]

Whataboutism as a life philosophy.

[Speaking for normal people]

No, school does. Priseidents, judges and citizens all go to school.
THis was one of Biden's many great sins, to squash all eduction reform for the sake of being backed by school unions

US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT
2 of 3 Americans Wouldn’t Pass U.S. Citizenship Test
A survey found that people aged 65 and older were more likely to pass the test than those aged 45 and younger.

[David Nieporent]

2 of 3 Americans Wouldn’t Pass U.S. Citizenship Test

Using Bondi math, roughly 150% of MAGA wouldn't.

[Speaking for normal people]

Do you ever watch TV .....Here is a super-egregious misstatement that by your standards should have lost them their jobs AND DID NOT

MSNBC's Brian Williams, NYT's Mara Gay Agree Bloomberg Could Have Given Each American $1 Million With Money He Spent

{ Do the math...it is not $! Million , it is about $1.50 !!!!!!!!!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_i0QrK2814

All the hate and trouble and unrest this caused.

[Malika the Maiz]

Yes, it’s where I originally saw Bondi and Trump’s statements. I think idiotic statements by Presidents and Attorneys General > than same by cable news readers but I get YMMV.

[Krayt]

And eggs would go up to about $5k a dozen.

[bernard11]

They're only about a dime a dozen now, per Trump. Real smart.

[Armchair]

So there's a few things going on.

1. There's a difference between a politician making a statement for political purposes and a judge making a statement that they're arguably basing their judgement on.

1a. A Politician (like Trump) or a person in a political-type office (like Bondi) may be expected to exaggerate. It's...very very common. And note how they're doing it, exaggerating their accomplishments. Did egg prices drop by "93-94%?" No. But they did drop substantially. (By more than 50%). Did Bondi "save 200 million plus lives"? Through creative math...sure. That much fentanyl could have easily killed that many Americans.

2a. Sotomayor is not a politician though. She is not exaggerating her own accomplishments. She's making a judgement based on what she views "as the facts". And if her view on the facts is dramatically wrong, that's going to affect her judgements. If Fentanyl is actually killing hundreds of millions of Americans, that would justify the most radical absurd crackdown on drugs you've ever seen. If COVID is actually killing hundreds of thousands of kids, that would justify dramatic actions. If it's only affecting 1 in 10,000 children...then that's different.

Again...it's the difference between a politician exaggerating their own accomplishments and a judge having an incorrect view of the actual facts and making a judgement based on that.

[Malika the Maiz]

The difference is in the first they’re lying/saying idiotic things to the voting public and making policy on those lies/idiotic things. Misstating something in a debate is more forgivable imho than in a prepared statement.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm seeing double here - two standards!

[ducksalad]

.it's the difference between a politician exaggerating their own accomplishments and a judge having an incorrect view of the actual facts and making a judgement based on that.

More accurate explanation: It's the difference between your side doing it and their side doing it.

[Armchair]

Nah, that would be comparing Biden and Trump. Biden has exaggerated plenty of times.

The real issue is making policy on your error-laden statements. Trump won't make any policy change if eggs drop in price by 50% or 95%. Both are victories.

But 100,000 kids with long COVID? That might prompt...oh...long term school closures that have dramatic effects on learning, socialization, job skills, and more.

[Speaking for normal people]

Bong !!! Wrong answer.
Sotomayor did not have an incorrect view, she simply didn't make any effort. You can only cook up “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.” NO source supports that. Laziness or lying explains it. "Incorrect" simply EXCUSES IT...so shame on you

[bernard11]

Did Bondi "save 200 million plus lives"? Through creative math...sure. That much fentanyl could have easily killed that many Americans.

No. It couldn't "easily" have done that. Maybe it could if 258 million people were each given a carefully measured lethal dose. How "easy" do you think that would be?

[Armchair]

"How "easy" do you think that would be?"

I mean...I can think of a few ways.

And "carefully measured?"...technically Bondi's math was a little off. The report is that that much fentanyl could kill over a billion people. So...just shoot for the over.

[rloquitur]

Aaahhh Sonia Sotomayor: :"The wise [sic] Latina."

[Malika the Maiz]

Make Austerity Great Again?

“President Donald Trump, celebrating the 100-day mark of his second term with his Cabinet, admitted his tariffs could mean higher prices for Americans, but appeared to dismiss the impact on American families, including on children's toys.

"You know, somebody said, 'Oh, the shelves are going to be open.' Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls," Trump said on Wednesday.”

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-dismisses-concerns-higher-prices-tariffs-childrens-toys/story?id=121367634

[Commenter_XY]

I was told stoicism was a virtue. 😉 /sarc

[Speaking for normal people]

St Augustine thought it was demonically inhuman. ANd you mean Stoicism the philosophy

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that's a wild exaggeration. He thought it wasn't internally consistent, especially if taken too far.

[Speaking for normal people]

NO, I am reading "City of God" for the second time. He despised it as opposed to what being a human means.
Chapter 14:9 "they are in a way rather to lose all humanity"

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe somebody should, like, start teaching basic economics in K-12? Such as that deferred gratification is the basis of capitalism, and that if you want a better life tomorrow, you should live beneath your means today?

If we've reached the point that we can't do anything that makes things worse in the short run in order to reap long term benefits, we are simply doomed as a nation.

[Malika the Maiz]

Sure thing, Boxer!

[Speaking for normal people]

Okay, but which gratification is deferred. Maybe we should teach religion, ethics, moralityYou are right about suffering in the short run but Capitalism

Religion and the Rise of Capitalism
A Historical Survey
By R. H. Tawney

Tawney explored how religious doctrines, such as the concept of work as a calling, influenced the way people viewed wealth and success, ultimately contributing to the growth of a capitalist economy.

Don't be a God-hating stupid Libertarians like Ayn Rand

“A religious philosophy, unless it is frankly to abandon nine-tenths of conduct to the powers of darkness, cannot admit the doctrine of a world of business and economic relations self-sufficient and divorced from ethics and religion.”
― RH Tawney

[Frank Drackman]

Economics? They're too busy with Drag Queen Story Hour

[SRG2]

Such as that deferred gratification is the basis of capitalism,

It isn't. Evidently this is some principle you've come up with by yourself and, being impressed by your own brilliance, are determined to keep telling everyone else about it.

There is indeed a concept of delayed gratification in economics, but it's called "savings" not "capitalism" and is represented by interest rates, not ROE.

[Brett Bellmore]

Delayed gratification is the basis of capitalism, because capitalism involves taking some of your profits and investing it in increased productive capacity instead of just spending it for current gratification. So, yeah, delayed gratification IS the basis of capitalism.

[Sarcastr0]

Savings or investment is not just capitalism, though.

Just about every society since agriculture does that.

[SRG2]

You are not the Bellman such that what you say three times is true.

[Magister]

But we do have no shortage of commenters who have clearly decided "Just the place for a snark!"

[SRG2]

LOL good one.

[John 4]

I think you're confusing "capitalism" with "investment".

[David Nieporent]

capitalism involves taking some of your profits and investing it in increased productive capacity instead of just spending it for current gratification.

Capitalism does not, in fact, involve that. And by your logic, delayed gratification is the basis of communism. And every other non-subsistence existence.

[Bwaaah]

"Capitalism does not, in fact, involve that."

Say what you want. I've never seen a successful capitalist who didn't "delay gratification," i.e. who didn't choose a relatively costlier road today in pursuit of a relatively greater return in the future. That discipline of "sweat" investment is a core practice in economic success, arguably in the context of a wide range of economic models in addition to "capitalism."

Every shyster I've ever known knew what "fast money" is, liked fast money, and knew what was wrong with fast money. (Fast money is an attempt to skip necessary costs/delays of gratification, like a drug fix to a bottoming addict.) Delayed gratification is an essential discipline in hedging against the risks of life, and people who don't command that discipline within themselves are likely to have difficulties in "cashing in" on economic opportunity. (It doesn't help that government benefits are presented as an opportunity to "cash in" despite their arbitrary mechanics that are arbitrated through political theaters outside the natural flows of economic activity. Those benefits, though helpful in some measures, turn people's attention away from economics and self-driven opportunities for economic growth.)

"Investment" is an example of delayed gratification, and capitalism does indeed necessarily involve both.

[Brett Bellmore]

He wouldn't BE Nieporent if he weren't denying the obvious. That's his gig, like Rickles insulting people.

[SRG2]

Someone who has sufficient resources can gratify himself instantly without evidently impairing his ability to invest.

[jb]

"If we've reached the point that we can't do anything that makes things worse in the short run in order to reap long term benefits, we are simply doomed as a nation."

On the one hand, that seems correct to me. On the other hand, using it as a defense for a guy/administration that is trying to jam through a bunch of tax cuts; actively discouraging renewable energy and related technologies (unless they happen to be Tesla cars); and running a tariff program that includes special carve outs for the special CEOs who get face time with him is laughable. Other than, apparently "tariffs are good", Trump doesn't seem to have ever held a durable opinion that would lead to reasonable short-term vs. long-term tradeoffs.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Maybe somebody should, like, start teaching basic economics in K-12? Such as that deferred gratification is the basis of capitalism, and that if you want a better life tomorrow, you should live beneath your means today?"

Two points :

1. Maybe somebody should, like, start by teaching Trump that Economics lesson plan created for kindergarteners. He's the one too brainlessly stupid to know what a tariff is. He's the one hopelessly clueless over the meaning of trade deficits. He's the one who'[s destroying the U.S. economy thru sheer ignorance alone.

2. And "living within your means" is really rich coming for you. Has there ever been a budget-busting, deficit-exploding, tsunami-of-red-ink GOP budget plan you didn't cheer yourself hoarse supporting? Living within your means never seems to be a priority then.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am quite unhoarse, and actually have a record of criticizing Trump for not submitting more budget cuts.

[jb]

But you keep voting for the party that is least serious about fixing the budget deficit.

Democrats will in fact raise taxes to pay for their priorities. For all practical purposes, Republicans talk a big game about cutting spending to pay for their tax cuts, but never do. So we just get massive budget deficit increases every time they're in office. Recently both parties have been pretty terrible at this, but by the end of Biden's term he was at least managing to bring the deficit back down whereas the Republicans are looking for ways to pretend that, e.g., extending the TCJA tax cuts won't cost anything.

[grb]

1. As long as Brett is "on record" criticizing 2+2=4 (ie, basic arithmetic), then he can continue always voting for the candidate who promises the most new federal debt.

2. And as long as Brett is "on record" criticizing basic arithmetic, he can continue to serve us pretty little set-pieces of pious woe on the evils of federal debt (which he ALWAYS votes for).

3. And Brett does think federal debt is really, really icky (despite ALWAYS voting for it). He thinks something should be done about it. He thinks people should take action! Of course, Brett will never support any action that doesn't give the Right everything they want. He'll always reject any proposal that requires the Right to make a single compromise. He's not interested in deficit reduction if it requires a single molecule of Right-wing sacrifice.

4. But - hey - his sermons on "debt being really bad" are very pretty acts of performance art. The emotions of sadness and regret are acted with almost life-like vividness. After watching Brett do one of dainty little pieces on deficits, you have to believe the stage lost a great actor.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Who gets their daughter 30 dolls?

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s pretty easy to get something near that amount when you consider they come in sets often and there’s often two sets of living grandparents. Not sure about thirty actual dolls with my daughters but certainly thirty actual toys a Christmas and a year or two likely near 30 dolls…

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, lots of peoples, me for 1 (of millions) there was (probably still is) this series of dolls called "American Girl" I'll let the Wikipedia X-plain it
"American Girl is an American line of 18-inch (46 cm) dolls released originally in 1986 by Pleasant Company (now Mattel). The dolls portray eight to thirteen-year-old girls of a variety of backgrounds. They are sold with accompanying books told from the viewpoint of the girls. Originally the stories focused on various periods of American history, but were expanded in 1995 to include contemporary characters and stories. From 2014–2019, the Historical line was branded as BeForever."
They even had a store at North Point Mall in Alpharetta where Girls could take their dolls for tea & crumpets, buy them new outfits,
OK, my girls didn't do that

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

My sis worked for American Girl. Every time she said that, I heard "American Grill", because, duh, she was a professional chef, what else would I hear. Why would a chef be working for a doll company?

Turned out she was making crumpets and petite fours for little girls in their Chicago store.

[Kazinski]

Anyone who allows their kid to have 30 dolls is an idiot.

Who wants to spend all their time putting toys away?

I don't, and I don't want my kids spending their time doing it either, even if I could get them to do it. No to mention the clutter and expense of cabinets or toy boxes for it all.

[Josh R]

The 30 dolls is a metaphor for the problem with Trump's policies. People don't want to be told by the government they can't have stuff. That's what the left typically does. But, now it's the argument of the economic nationalists, and if people end up not being able to buy what they want, they will take it out on Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

The thing about the “American Girl” Dolls was they each had their own wardrobe, accessories, so it wasn’t just 30 dolls, but all the dolls (redacted) sort of like real women

[Kazinski]

They can have what they want, nobody passed a doll control law limiting the number of dolls and their accessories.

[Josh R]

They are limited by the price of the dolls caused by tariffs. If that weren't the case, Trump wouldn't have made the doll argument.

[Krayt]

30 dolls, odd as it is, is a bragging point for capitalism, as corollary of freedom. Free people responding, without interference, to not just the needs, but desires of others.

Nobody sitting their, scratching their head, and deciding, I guess dolls are silly and a waste of resources and effort, so, no, your application to make dolls is denied.

Send in the next person to supplicate!

[Kazinski]

I mentioned above Radio Free Asia, which I actually read at least occasionally and I will be sorry if they shut down.

However I think its a worse outcome if they continue to operate funded by the US government. Here is a snippet from an article about one of their employees, who was a victim, although he survived of the killing fields (as is almost every Cambodian over the age of 50, and I know dozens quite well)

Can he forgive?
“Whatever happened in the past, nobody can undo it. We have to look to the future, so I will forgive,” he said.

“I have forgiven the Khmer Rouge. Some of them were victims themselves. So there’s no need to hold grudges against them.”

But he says it is a different story for former Khmer Rouge cadres who continue to hold and abuse power in Cambodia today: “It is very difficult to forgive them.”

That's actually quite ridiculous, because while older members of the current regime were lower level members of the Khmer Rouge, they defected to the Vietnamese and helped bring down the Khmer Rouge when the rest of the world was standing by, and the killing went on.

while Hun Sen probably defected to save his own neck from an internal purge, he was instrumental in bring down the Khmer Rouge rooting them out in a more than a decade long guerilla war and helping the UN bring Pol Pot to trial.

And of course few people will deny he is a brutal kleptocrat who is probably responsible for hundreds of deaths of dissidents, Labor activists, and competing kleptocrats.

But saying you forgive the Khmer Rouge for killing and starving millions and can't forgive the current regime that ended it is ridiculous.

It helps to show why US funding of news outlets in Asia giving a platform to people with a political ax to grind is counterproductive. It does more to delegititimize home grown opposition and make it harder for them to make progress than it helps, and often it is used to justifiy throwing the opposition in jail, as unjust as it maybe.

Let him say what he wants, but the fact we are funding it negates any value it could possibly have.

https://www.rfa.org/english/cambodia/2025/04/17/cambodia-survivors-khmer-rouge-genocide-stories/

[Malika the Maiz]

Is it ridiculous to hold back forgiveness for those that are continuing to do awful things?

Also, this is one of four people they say they are interviewing. Should they have not reported on this one guy because he was critical of the Cambodian government?

“delegititimize home grown opposition and make it harder for them to make progress than it helps, and often it is used to justifiy throwing the opposition in jail”

Couldn’t this be said of most criticisms of any illiberal governments by outsiders? Should outsiders cease to criticize?

[Kazinski]

The entire MSM and Democratic establishment got their panties twisted in a wad over 100k of Russian Facebook ads in 2016.

And yet you think its ok for the US government to pay full time salaries to 1600 people to try to influence foreign elections around the world?

I probably agree with at least a third of them, 2/3 are likely Marxists or worse, but even if I agreed with them all, its a bad idea for the US government to fund them.

Look up Kem Sokha for a great example.

"The charges against him relate partly to a video recorded in 2013 in which he discusses a strategy to win power with the help of U.S. experts. The United States Embassy has rejected any suggestion that Washington was trying to interfere in Cambodian politics.

On Friday, the court said in its statement that it omitted the alleged foreign countries that colluded with Kem Sokha from its decision for the sake of national interest and to maintain Cambodia’s relationship with those countries. The court will keep related documents confidential to maintain cooperation between foreign countries, it said."

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/kem-sokha-verdict-03022023223514.html

The US gave him relatively benign training, and funding helping him set up an opposition party.

It landed him a 27 year sentence, and I could see the same thing happening here if the Russians funded exactly the same thing for a congressional or senatorial or Presidential candidate.

Can't you see what the problem is?

[Malika the Maiz]

There’s a few differences between the means involved in RFA and the Russian efforts to influence our elections (the latter is certainly more duplicitous), but I think the more important is motive. Just like rebellion re the American Revolution is different than rebellion re the Civil War.

[Kazinski]

So its the Left arguing now that as long as our hearts our pure we can do no wrong?

Or that publicly funding RFA makes them worry about what we are doing they can't see?

I don't care what country you are in: a foreign funded opposition is counterproductive, even if its a foreign funded opposition press.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think it’s immoral or counterproductive, because you seem to move between the two in this post alone.

As for the latter, do you think Reagan’s harsh criticism of the Soviet regime was counterproductive and he should have kept a lid on it?

[Kazinski]

Hypocritical and counter productive.

And to be clear I think diplomatically we can and should criticize other countries, and our free press is and should be too.

I am against us publicly funding propaganda outlets that are targeting foreign audiences.

[David Nieporent]

So its the Left arguing now that as long as our hearts our pure we can do no wrong?

William F. Buckley responded to someone who said that the U.S.'s participation in overthrowing a communist government was the equivalent of the Soviets' overthrowing of a democratic government, and he said, "That is like saying that pushing an old lady in front of a bus is the equivalent of pushing an old lady out of the way of the bus, because they're both pushing old ladies around."

[Dr. Ed 2]

50 years ago, we broke our promise and abandoned South Vietnam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLahWbVuxz8&t=486s

Notice the attitude of gratitude that woman has?
Compare that to the "I deserve it" attitude of the invading hordes...

[Malika the Maiz]

We’re breaking them to Afghan migrants now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Your own language shows the lie -- "migrants" versus "refugees."
And I don't remember a uniformed Army of the Republic of Afghanistan.

[Malika the Maiz]

There were many Afghans that allied with us, many came here after we left and the Taliban took over, and your Orange God wants to send them back.

[jb]

And I don't remember a uniformed Army of the Republic of Afghanistan.

WTF are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Afghan_Armed_Forces_(2002%E2%80%932021)

[grb]

jb : "WTF are you talking about?"

To paraphrase : "Forget it, Jake. It's Dr. Ed 2"

[Frank Drackman]

We didn't abandon shit, as JFK said, it was their war, they were the ones who had to win or lose it.

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump said dozens of times he would end the war in Ukraine before he took office and/or in a day. Yet here we are over a hundred days into his administration and it continues. I know some people here borderline worship the guy, so maybe what’s going on is it’s like how believers say God could create the world in seven days because a day to God is like x amount of time to us, so maybe that’s how they defend Trump’s wackily wrong statements? That might also be what this is all about?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-pope-francis-conclave-ai-image-bishops-9d88286886c350c4465f7c2afb7a5e41

[Brett Bellmore]

It was a foolish promise to make, because he should have known it wasn't in his power to pull it off.

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s a regularly foolish person.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He might have been able to pull it off had there not been all those busybody Federal judges.

[Malika the Maiz]

The judges stopped him from ending the war in Ukraine? Lol

[rloquitur]

A Scooby-Doo reference?

[SRG2]

Why would he have known that? That requires knowledge. Trump runs on ignorance, grievance, vengeance and ego.

[bernard11]

It was a foolish promise to make, because he should have known it wasn't in his power to pull it off.

Not smart, IOW.

[Speaking for normal people]

Really you disgust me --- a billion times better than that lazy, stupid, poorly spoken lifelfong clod Biden and uber-stupid clueless hag Harris.

[Malika the Maiz]

I get you have strong feelings but no defense of his repeated stupid claim.

[Frank Drackman]

Zelensky's security team is too good

[Mr. Bumble]

A day without comments about Kill-More (H/T FD) is like a day without sunshine. Another open thread with multiple comments about the world's most famous illegal alien and his trials (or lack of) and tribulations.
Have any of his team of defender practitioners file an action in El Salvador to have him released from prison?

[Michael P]

They seem to be hoping that a judge will order one or more Cabinet members to advise the President to use his pen and phone to convince Nayib Bukele to deport an El Salvadoran gang member to the US, where said gang member can expect a prompt re-deportation to El Salvador given his history of domestic violence and human trafficking.

[David Nieporent]

convince Nayib Bukele to deport an El Salvadoran gang member to the US

Apparently you don't know what the word "deport" means.

given his history of domestic violence and human trafficking.

Donald Trump has a longer and more well-documented history of those things than Abrego Garcia does.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are in strong competition with SarcastrO for the title of Il Douche.

[rloquitur]

Can they both win?

[Michael P]

I see it as a troika that also includes "not guilty".

[not guilty]

As southern folk wisdom teaches, the hit dog hollers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Comments above open a question what happens if courts have need of enforcement power for civil contempt. In ordinary cases, I think they rely on U.S. Marshals to do that. But what would be the real-world outcome if a court attempted to compel a U.S. Marshal, under supervision of the administration, to do enforcement of a writ or citation against an administration figure?

My speculation would be that a Marshal put in that pickle would consult a lawyer. So what advice would the lawyers who comment here provide? Let's posit that the Marshal himself has been threatened with penalties for contempt if he does not comply with the court.

[Kazinski]

It would be pretty amusing if the court appointed Eric Holder as a special master to advise them about what action they should take if an administration refused to enforce a finding of contempt from another branch.

[Commenter_XY]

The Marshall probably belongs to a union. In that case, the Marshall should file a grievance, with the union, so they don't get fired for insubordination.

[not guilty]

The U.S. Marshal Service is under the control of the Department of Justice. I don't mean to fight the hypothetical, but it is unlikely that a District Court, who is authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4.1 to appoint other persons to serve civil process, would rely on the Marshal Service to serve process in an action where the Attorney General is a party defendant.

If I were advising a Marshal, I would advise him to move the Court to appoint another law enforcement officer, not under the control of DOJ, to serve any order committing a person for civil contempt.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — Thanks for your reply. But can you realistically imagine any law enforcement officer not under control of the President who would undertake an assignment to take into custody the Attorney General of the United States? Also, please consider the challenges to keep that person in custody if the President chooses to use force to set her free.

I confess these questions matter more to me rhetorically than they do as practical speculations. My frame of reference for Trump-related upheavals is a supposition of ongoing, existential, Constitutional crisis for this nation.

With so many in apparent denial of that supposition, I think the most important next step to defend American constitutionalism is to undertake prompt actions to clarify the existence of the crisis. It seems necessary to demonstrate as soon as possible its imposing character. The more time afforded to Trump to mobilize government power on behalf of constitutional overthrow, the harder it will become for the citizenry to thwart efforts to accomplish it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Make Alcatraz Great Again!

[Malika the Maiz]

It appears Trump loomed large in another conservative electoral effort this week, this time in Australia. Btw-about 20% of votes have yet to be counted it seems days after the election there so of course the election is a FRAUD/STEAL amirite?

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

Did some globalist Leftist win?

Then yes, it was most likely fraud and/or stolen. Leftist ideology is abhorrent to people who like freedom and liberty.

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, “it’s not my fault, it’s that all those girl’s I liked were lesbians!”

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

I turn lesbians normal, Queenie.

HTH

[Malika the Maiz]

Meaning they turn you down too?

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit Queenie, that's no joke

[Martinned]

And again the leader of the conservative party lost his seat. (Although in Canada Poilievre has already arranged to get another one.)

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

Happy Cinco De Ported Day!

[Speaking for normal people]

My Hispanic students (Southern Texas) were the most vocal about how wrong open borders are.

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

Kenjati "Bone Thrower" Jackson recently said that criticizing judges is an attack on democracy.

How many of you Leftists are going to apologize for all of your democracy harming comments?

[ThePublius]

She's an ass. Criticizing judges is in no way an attack on democracy. That has become the Democrats, the left's battle cry over the last few years, and it is hollow and nonsensical. I mean, one might criticize a judge in support of democracy, no?

[Sarcastr0]

The right plotzed when Obama criticized a Supreme Court finding at the State of the Union, and that wasn't a whiff of the current full-court press of the administration claiming judicial independence is not real (Obama judges!!), and bad (though only when they rule against Trump).

And look at the upshot - posters on here are going monarchical 'courts don't get to countermand the President.' If we have rule of law, yes, they do.

Biden had a TON of courts rule against him. The complaints about that on here were not about the judiciary being out of line, it was about the specific issue of single judge districts.

Except for Blackman, who began his 'coastal judges against those plucky Texas single judge districts' clownery back then.

[ThePublius]

Plotzed means extremely drunk. What did you mean?

[David Nieporent]

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4058904/jewish/What-Does-Plotz-Mean.htm

In Yiddish, the verb plotz means to crack, burst, shatter, collapse, or explode. Its most common English usage is in reference to a person who is bursting with emotion, either negative of positive.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plotz

Yiddish undefeated in sounding like what it means.

[rloquitur]

What we didn't like is that Obama was misleading on the facts of CU. That case, lest it be forgotten, involved the threat of criminal penalties for publishing a documentary on a public figure, Hillary Clinton. The fact that Obama demagogued that issue is a blight upon the Democratic party. But since Obama set the precedent, Trump should get to say what he wants about the judges.

[David Nieporent]

I think CU was absolutely correct and disagreed with Obama's position. But the whatabouting here is so sad. Did Obama make it personal about judges, let alone incite threats against them? No. Here was his statement:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

If Trump talked like an adult like that, about 50% of the criticism of him would disappear.

[Speaking for normal people]

She is an asss but that is criticizing judges to say it.
Ketanji might be worse than Sotomayor and Kagan but the 3 are so bad that it might inaugurate a new 'women are dumb' wave. I would hate to see that. I remember Jeane Kirkpatrick and Mary Ann Glendon.

[Michael P]

That would be a dumb apology to make, considering that the judiciary's primary role is to act as a check on, and balance against, the elected branches. Courts are explicitly anti-democratic. It's sad that a Supreme Court justice gets something so basic so wrong, but it was clear what we should expect from that one when she couldn't define "woman".

[Malika the Maiz]

“Courts are explicitly anti-democratic.”

Which is why at the federal level they are appointed by elected officials, can be removed by same, and can have their opinions reversed by democratic amendments!

[Sarcastr0]

Anti-populist != anti-democratic.

[Malika the Maiz]

“ Kenjati "Bone Thrower" Jackson recently said that criticizing judges is an attack on democracy.”

Like JB?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“Preserving Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx

"Across the nation, judges are facing increased threats of not only physical violence but also professional retaliation, just for doing our jobs. And the attacks are not random; they seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity."

Conservatives, often selectively, cite these things too, citing ethical complaints against Alito/Thomas as well as threats made to multiple conservative justices.

National legislation was passed to better protect federal judges. As one article noted:

Threats of physical violence against judges have also been on the rise, with judges facing bomb threats and a rash of delivery of anonymously dispatched pizzas, a prank apparently designed to send a message that their home addresses can be found.

https://archive.ph/v7Qaf

A defense of judicial independence "preserved for the protection of our Constitution" was also made by John Roberts in his end-of-the-year report for the judiciary. If people can criticize the judiciary, judges can defend its independence.

[David Nieporent]

Kenjati "Bone Thrower" Jackson recently said that criticizing judges is an attack on democracy.

She did not. There is no substitute for actually reading.

[Mr. Bumble]

“The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity,” Jackson told a judges’ conference in Puerto Rico. “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.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/01/ketanji-brown-jackson-sharply-condemns-trumps-attacks-on-judges-00323010

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The NY Daily News had pro and con op-eds regarding the pending NY Medical Aid in Dying Act.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S138

It has passed the assembly, and it looks like there is widespread support.

https://compassionandchoices.org/in-your-state/new-york/

I think the choice is already a constitutional right, if not one recognized by the New York Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court. So, we are left (like the wrongly removed right to choose an abortion, if one NY does recognize) to legislative action.

Count me on the "pro" side.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What does this do to the laws against suicide?

[David Nieporent]

Which laws against suicide are you thinking of?

[Moderation4ever]

Remind of the last time a person was convicted of attempted suicide? We generally don't prosecute people who are successful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Civil prosecution -- involuntary commitment.

[Commenter_XY]

So long as it requires the patient themselves to make the affirmative choice, and self administer the fatal dose.

[not guilty]

"I think the choice is already a constitutional right, if not one recognized by the New York Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court."

A patient does not have a fundamental constitutional right to assistance in committing suicide, per Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). A state may codify such a right if the legislature chooses to do so.

[Speaking for normal people]

One thing I admire about me: I don't sieve a million things through my head before I arrive at a conviction. Whatever the niceties, that wife-beating MS-13 thug should be kept out of our country. In what way does he stand for what is good, decent, moral?

"No one was accepted into citizenship immediately. We read something similar in Aristotle’s Politics, Book 3, where the philosopher remarks that some nations regarded persons as citizens only after their families had been present in the land for several generations.

The reason for such a rule, St. Thomas says, is that if newly arrived foreigners were immediately allowed to take a hand in the people's affairs, many dangers might result. Some of these newcomers, not yet confirmed in love for the people's good, might try to harm them. In view of this danger, the law distinguished between outsiders from nations that had some affinity with the Jews, and outsiders from nations that had been hostile to them.

In the category of those having affinity with them were the Egyptians, among whom they had been born and raised, and the Idumaeans or Edomites, who were descended from Jacob’s brother Esau. These were to be allowed into the fellowship of the people after the third generation.

In the category of those who had been hostile to them were the Ammonites and Moabites, who were never to be allowed into their fellowship, and the Amalekites, who had no blood relationship with the community and had been so hostile that they were to be regarded as perpetual enemies. This is why the book of Exodus warns that the Lord will always be at war with Amalek, generation after generation."

[SRG2]

It's considered good practice to provide the source of a quotation.

Here you go: https://www.undergroundthomist.org/thomas-aquinas-on-immigration

Poster cites blogger. Shocker

In what way does he stand for what is good, decent, moral?

More cognitive limitation on display. Constitutional protections are not limited to (who the government determines are) good guys. You, like so many cultists, cannot separate principle from person.

[Speaking for normal people]

But you are wrong in your usual big way.
And your arguing skills are crap 🙂 you don't even dare say he is good , decent, moral !!! I know the difference , I've always admired John Adams defending British soldiers, including Captain Thomas Preston, in the Boston Massacre trial.

But the verdict is in: He is an MS-13 wife-beating illegal. You want to do the paperwork, fine.

[SRG2]

And your arguing skills are crap

LOL. If they were, I doubt you'd think it necessary to say so.

you don't even dare say he is good , decent, moral

Because I don't think he is nor does it affect the principle - a point you seem unable to appreciate. And what has "dare" to do with it?

But the verdict is in: He is an MS-13 wife-beating illegal.

No such verdict has been arrived at.

Do you concede that the Trump photo was photoshopped?

[Malika the Maiz]

“One thing I admire about me”

Nearly the saddest thing I’ve seen posted here (barring Frank “Look at me, I made up a gonzo persona to interact with people here and push MAGA, please notice me” Drackman’s).

[Speaking for normal people]

Readers, I regularly point out how mean, unfair, and illogical Malika is so I am sure it is a sad thing to discover that I am not a self-hater like Malika is. Anyway, to have strong opinions without facts and logic and hard work would be lamentable but
But it ain't me, babe
No, no, no, it ain't me, babe
It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe

[apedad]

Those "niceties" can also be described as "constitutional protections."

[Speaking for normal people]

Sure, if you don't make the distinction between who is protected and who isn't . And you don't.

[apedad]

You're right, "I" don't; I follow the Constitution.

[HazelMeade]

One thing I admire about me: I don't sieve a million things through my head before I arrive at a conviction.

So you mean, you don't bother to put too much thought into things?
That explains a lot.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

And if that fellow violated the law, and the Trump administration would follow the law, almost no one would have. a problem with him being deported. You seem like a smart guy, do you really not see that a President who disregards the law in his actions is a bigger problem than this one guy who may be a criminal?

[ducksalad]

The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death. Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!

The tariff is 100% of.....what, exactly? Does he think the movie has defined value at the time it is "imported"? Or is he proposing a surcharge on tickets, charged at the counter?

[Dan Schiavetta]

He does not know what he is saying. In fact I can't think of an instance where he did know what he was saying. (Except maybe, "When you're famous, they let you do it. You can grab their p***ies!")

[rloquitur]

"they let you do it" being the operative part.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You think it was consensual ?
I thought I muted would be rapists like you.

Muted.

[Krayt]

Still no required warning labels, "Warning! This movie was made with intent to not piss off China so our vast properties being shown there won't get ejected."

We love democracy requiring warning labels of dangerous things. Foreign lobbyists have to register. Why not bending the knee to help a dictatorship export censorship?

[Dr. Ed 2]

A 100% tax on licensing rights sold by the owner, which would include whatever the theater charges to show the movie.

[Martinned]

Alex Tabarrok is wondering the same thing: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/05/tabarrok-on-the-movie-tariff.html

[Jmaie]

So can Mr. Tabarrok look forward to an imminent ban on him entering any federal buildings?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Nearly five months after President Donald Trump announced his “special ambassadors” to Hollywood, one of them appears poised to present a plan to revive the film and television industry in the United States — but what, exactly, does that entail?

Jon Voight has been taking meetings around town with union reps and studio executives to understand the issues plaguing domestic production.

What does Angelina Jolie's dad suggest? First, a disclaimer:

Trump’s other two ambassador picks, Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson, are not involved in Voight’s conversations.

Stallone is too busy making action flicks, perhaps.

Okay ...

sources with knowledge of his conversations with Hollywood insiders tell us they expect a federal tax incentive to be the main component

Local areas, including mine own, have provided incentives:

Stateside, while individual states from the heavy hitters of New York and Georgia to smaller jurisdictions like New Mexico have done what they can to bolster their own local industries, union representatives have been raising the idea of a federal tax break to further incentivize domestic production for some time.

https://deadline.com/2025/05/jon-voight-save-hollywood-plan-trump-approval-1236383155/

Films are often made in Canada, including a Jackie Chan film that supposedly took place in the Bronx. One more reason for Trump to be upset at them, eh?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Possible Volokh Conspiracy project: parse what is allowed here. For instance, note this exception:

(3)the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 4604 [3] of this title, or under section 4605 [3] of this title to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1702

A bit of parsing would be helpful.

[Martinned]

That's a very polite way of saying that what Trump is proposing isn't even legal, and/or that nobody in the administration even bothered to check.

[Speaking for normal people]

TIme to leave this loser discussion, everything is trrailing off into "even though the guy is a shit illegal, he deserves...."

[SRG2]

I'm sure you'll get a more respectful hearing at 4chan

[Frank Drackman]

Can we trade all of the DemoKKKrat Representatives/Senators for Kill-more Garcias?

[David Nieporent]

"even though the guy is a shit illegal, he deserves...."

Yes, that's because it's both the morally and legally correct position. The same is true for Trump and the J6 insurrectionists: even though they were and are treasonous POS, they deserved (and got) full due process. Rights belong to everyone, not just good people.

(To be clear, I am not conceding that Abrego Garcia is nearly as bad as Trump or the J6ers; I'm just saying that even if all the unproven allegations against him were true, he deserved due process.)

[Mr. Bumble]

He got what he was due, to finally be deported.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He was ordered deported provided that he *not* be sent to El Salvador. The question isn't whether that decision could have been modified (I assume it could) but whether, pre-modification, he could legally be sent to El Salvador with that proviso in his deportation order (answer: he couldn't be, and it was illegal to do it)

[rloquitur]

The government concedes that he was deported to the wrong country. The issue is whether Trump has to lift a finger to get him back.

Spoiler alert: He doesn't. F off Judge Xinis.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah....Ooopsie.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You're like a Democratic parody of a Trump voter.

This is a clear cut case of right and wrong, and you're on the wrong side.

What's more, you're discrediting the whole idea of enforcing the immigration laws at all, because if the government can ignore immigration laws, why can't migrants do it too?

And the federal judges - which definitely includes the Republican judges - are going to feel they've been toyed with by the administration, and some judges who would otherwise have been sympathetic to immigration enforcement will become more skeptical. And they will probably get skeptical over what the administration tells them about non-immigration issues too.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So you were wrong to support Elian Gonzalez’ American kidnappers over his father??

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That makes no sense.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I think he means a lot of, shall we say, right-leaning folks then advocated against Elian being returned to, you know, his father; instead to be raised by strangers.
Young boy as a political football.
Family values but "fuck Castro".
Was that in Buckley's 'Airborne'?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If the immigration hearing officer had forbidden Elian Gonzalez from being returned to Cuba, but the U. S. returned him anyway, maybe that might be relevant to my point, otherwise what on earth is everyone babbling about?

[Speaking for normal people]

Professor Volokh, about : "any material perceived to "vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against" certain classes and groups protected on the basis of sex, race, and other attributes." -- why not affirm fredom of Relgion , Freedom of Conscience.
OF course it offends a homosexual or an adulterer or trans to bring up Hell and sin and perversion but where is the connection?

Didn't the courts uphold the ban on Bigamy without in any way infringing the public right of a Mormon to argue for it?
The mother of all hate speech is to punish people for what they hold by conscience. Praying at an abortion clinic should be protected not prosecuted. Street preaching about homosexuality etc. is certainly not something a person does for persona gain.

I am utterlly opposed to persecutin of Falun Gong and Uyghurs on that basis. IF God is not God the state will be God. C;aremce Thomas got what I think you miss entirely, in the cross burning case. Hate is lawyers arguing that the Jews in Skokie have to let Nazis march in their town. You can bet that where you lawyers live that is not going to be allowed.

My neighbors and co-workers are by and large hard-working normal people and if Dylan Mulvaney came around the neighborhood they would hide their kids, they would not want him around. they (most) would not attack him. He is a disturbed perverted man. We are not haters for saying that and still treating him as a human being. A sizable minority of those folks would fault you and government and others for not helping the poor sick man

[Bored Lawyer]

Exhibit 1374 in AI makes things up.

I was speaking to a client of mine last night. About a year ago, I got a big win for him against a large company. He went into AI and asked about the dispute. "Yes, there was a dispute between X and Y over this issue." And who won? "The big company."

Taken aback, he asked, "Are you sure that's right?" Answer: "Sorry, that was a mistake. The little guy won."

[Bored Lawyer]

I see there is a lot of chatter above about "civil contempt" by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

So some basics. (This is a bit simplified). Criminal contempt is punitive. The contemnor is generally entitled to a trial, and sometimes a jury trial.

Civil contempt is either coercive or remedial. Coercive means, the judge has to order "Do X, and if you refuse, you will have Consequence Y." Consequence Y might be a daily fine or jail. But, critically, the person has to be able to avoid contempt by doing "X." The old saying is that the "Contemnor holds the key to his jail cell." Meaning, the moment he does X, he gets out of jail. Anything beyond that is criminal contempt.

And, the pardon power covers criminal contempt but not civil contempt.

So when someone says that a person should be held in "civil contempt" they better fill in both the X and the Y. Anything less is legally void.

[Commenter_XY]

BL, I fear some have confused facilitate with effectuate, as well. I don't think they care about X so much as applying Y of their choice.

[TaioF920]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale-breaking/2025/05/04/people-shot-near-historic-downtown-glendale/83450897007/

"
BREAKING NEWS
3 killed, more injured at restaurant on edge of historic downtown Glendale
Portrait of Steve KilarSteve Kilar
Arizona Republic

0:08
/
0:15
Three people were killed and more were injured in a mass shooting at a restaurant on the edge of historic downtown Glendale, police said.

The shooting took place in the parking lot outside El Camaron Gigante at about 7:45 p.m. on May 4, according to police and the restaurant's management.

"Our hearts go out to the victims, their families, and all affected by this senseless violence," the restaurant posted on Instagram in the early morning hours of May 5. "We are working closely with law enforcement and supporting our team as we process this heartbreaking event."

The mariscos and steak restaurant is at North 57th Drive and West Lamar Road, which is two blocks southeast of the intersection of Grand Avenue and West Glendale Avenue.

A Glendale police spokesperson said during a news briefing at about 9 p.m. on May 4, in the early stages of the investigation, that about nine people were shot, and more than one person was shooting.

3 killed, more injured at restaurant on edge of historic downtown Glendale
Murder trial to begin for Cleophus Cooksey, accused of 3-week Arizona killing spree
What's being built by the Ocotillo restaurant in midtown Phoenix?
Man shot outside popular Tempe bar; shooter fled in white sedan, police say
Multiple people were being detained, and the investigation at the scene was expected to go into the daylight hours, Officer Moroni Mendez said at the briefing.

There did not appear to be a threat to the public, he said.

U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Arizona, issued a statement the morning after the shooting, decrying the violence and calling for greater gun control. She represents the congressional district where the shooting occurred.

“For too long, Americans have been forced to watch as gun violence affects every corner of our communities–schools, movie theaters, places of worship, and local restaurants like El Camaron Gigante," Ansari said. “Commonsense policy reform to regulate guns has broad, bipartisan support. It’s long past time we stand up and do something."

These lies should no longer be tolerated. Congress should make clear that the 1st Amendment does not protect calls for gun control, and punish the behavior accordingly.

[rloquitur]

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2025/05/05/youll-never-guess-whos-responsible-for-that-brutal-home-invasion-in-la-n4939490

Yeah, when will Dems complain about these avoidable deaths?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yo quiero mariscos.

[grb]

In the “Meet the Press” interview on Sunday, Kristen Welker asked Trump when Americans will feel the promised relief from his tariffs. This was his reply:

"I can’t tell you that. I can tell you that we’re making a lot of money. We’re doing great. Again, we were losing more than $5 billion a day. $5 billion a day. You don’t talk about that. And right now, we’re going to be at a point very soon where we’re making money every day. Look — we were losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now we’re essentially not doing business with China. Therefore, we’re saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Very simple."

Very simple indeed! But that's because it's grossly ignorant. Here's the reaction from financial writer, James Surowiecki:

"It’s impossible to overstate how stupid Trump’s view of trade is. He literally thinks that if you, American consumer, buy a TV that’s made in China, you’ve “lost money,” even though you got a TV in exchange for your dollars (at a very fair price)."

So Trump is going to destroy the U.S. economy because (a) he's too stupid to know what a tariff is, (b) he's too stupid to understand what trade deficits means, and (c) his mind has rotted to consistency of worm-ridden mush. The interview also contains this gem:

"I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy because he's done a terrible job...."

With any other president or politician, this would be forever mocked as childish and weaseling but we're used to that 24/7 with DJT so it barely registered. Plus there were more lies on the '20 election, more threats to invade Greenland, and Trump's uncertainty whether he has to follow the Constitution. Apparently he has a top-notch legal time to tell him if he does.

[rloquitur]

Take a look in the mirror. Trump is not talking about the individual consumer losing money. He's talking about the USA losing money through the outsourcing of jobs etc. I am a free-trader by bent. But free trade comes with an inherent free-rider problem. And what about slave labor and other issues? And his point about disposable consumerism is well-made. (Not sure I agree with it, but he makes a point.)

[John 4]

Attempting to defend those statements is cult-like behavior.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs to China under Bush/Cheney Remember when you voted for Bush/Cheney because slaughtering Muslims brought joy to your life?? Oops.

[Dillinger]

aw bummer you do this at Volokh, too?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Facts are bummers. Wait, did you vote for Bush?? Lololololololol!!!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Town of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (decided May 5, 2014): opening town board meetings with almost inevitably Christian prayer (rotating local ministers were almost all Christian) does not violate Establishment Clause; no attempt at proselytizing (overruling without admitting it County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 1989) (5 - 4 decision)

Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (decided May 5, 2003): waking 17-year-old defendant from bed (after let in by father), handcuffing him, and walking him to police station shoeless in winter was “arrest” such that confession obtained was inadmissible (and I’m not telling all of it! hard to believe lower court judges said this was O.K., but it seems everyone knew each other and the cops knew this kid had done a bad thing, namely stabbing missing 14-year-old girl)

Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Assocs., 538 U.S. 600 (decided May 5, 2003): First Amendment does not bar prosecution of fundraisers lying about where the money goes

Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (decided May 5, 1986): “Causing a catastrophe” is apparently a criminal offense in Pennsylvania. Defendants allegedly allowed their building to burn, causing deaths of tenants. Their motion to dismiss at the close of prosecution’s case based on insufficient evidence was granted. The Court holds that this counts as an “acquittal” and appeal is barred by Double Jeopardy.

Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (decided May 5, 1969): striking down on Equal Protection grounds Illinois statute allowing third party on ballot only if 200 voters signed petition from each of the 102 counties (which gives much greater weight to voters from sparsely-populated counties; Hardin County, the least populous, currently has a voting population of about 2,000)

Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823 (decided May 5, 1969): plaintiff, who had paid $1 for right to sue owned by Panama corporation which had the real claim against a Haitian corporation (and then sold it back under similar arrangement) was “collusively” a party for the sake of invoking federal court jurisdiction even though the arrangement was legal under state law; case dismissed

Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147 (decided May 5, 1986): Double Jeopardy does not bar re-sentencing (appellate court found different reasons to support death penalty)

Yates v. United States, 356 U.S. 363 (decided May 5, 1958): Smith Act conviction reversed on appeal, but contempt for refusal to answer questions during trial survives; Court holds that the seven months spent in prison during the proceedings was already adequate punishment (this was Oleta Yates, a CPUSA official)

Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403 (decided May 5, 1902): patent upheld for mixing molten steel from different furnaces for uniformity; not “anticipated” (i.e., obvious in light of then-current technology) by established process which did not hold molten steel in common container

Robers v. United States, 572 U.S. 639 (decided May 5, 2014): amount owed to bank under Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (here, fraudulent mortgage application) reduced by amount realized by sale of collateral, not by the value of the collateral at the time of the fraud

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I assume, like a rain-postponed game made up, JB will eventually drop in the daily SCOTUS segment on the website in the spot where it would have been if it was released on time.

Town of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway had an excellent dissent by Justice Kagan. It also had a depressing oral argument where even some of the challengers [the atheists] were thrown under the bus by their advocate, who only seemed to care about the religious segment of his clients. Multiple jurisdictions show it is possible to have non-religious invocations mixed in with religious ones.

OTOH, this was deemed absurd by the justices, who clearly find the Free Exercise Clause much more important than the Establishment Clause.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If these delays continue, I'll stop posting these summaries.

As of Wednesday it will be three years. I've done it every single day, no matter where I was, and waiting for his 7 a.m. (Eastern time) "Today in Supreme Court History" that I could tack these onto, was my daily ritual after making coffee. I can't wait all day for it to drop. 1,096 daily posts in a row is a bit much anyway.

[apedad]

Re: Kaupp v. Texas

At trial, Kaupp moved to suppress his confession as the fruit of an illegal arrest. The motion was denied, and Kaupp was convicted of murder and sentenced to 55 years in prison.

A confession that results from an illegal arrest must be suppressed unless the conditions of the confession indicated it was not influenced by the illegal arrest . . . . In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that an arrest within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurred and that Kaupp’s conduct was not consent sufficient to overcome the probable cause requirement . . . . Thus, Kaupp’s confession in this case should have been suppressed. (oyez)

'speaking for normal people' considers 4A a nicety and would have kept Kaupp in jail.

[Zarniwoop]

'speaking for normal people' considers 4A a nicety and would have kept Kaupp in jail.

Not sure how to parse that - can you rephrase?

The TX Courts got bench-slapped 9-0 on this (per curium, no noted dissents).

The murderer (male, 19) was in an incestuous relationship with his half-sister (14), and she had recently ended the relationship when she disappeared. He confessed to the murder and pleaded guilty ... and still managed to spin a wildly improbably story that that someone else (Kaupp) was the primary motivator - in order to get a sentence capped at 50 years.

[Zarniwoop]

Been looking, and I haven't been able to find any indication that TX even attempted to retry Kaupp.

Anyone have better Google-Fu?

[SRG2]

We have this from the Texas Court of Appeals, as stated in the opinion: the arrest occurred after Kaupp's confession; that Kaupp consented to go with the officers when he answered "Okay" to an officer's statement that they needed to talk; that a reasonable person would not have believed that putting on handcuffs before being removed to a patrol car was a significant restriction on his freedom of movement, since this was common practice of the sheriff's office; and that Kaupp did not resist the use of handcuffs or act in a manner consistent with anything but full cooperation.

So you've only been arrested if you resist donning handcuffs - which would allow you to be charged with resisting arrest. Fucking Texas judges.

[Zarniwoop]

I did appreciate that the S.Ct. called bool and sheet on that assertion by the TX courts.

[SRG2]

Re Town of Greece: thus Kennedy: "Legislative prayer, while religious in nature, has long been understood as compatible with the Establishment Clause"

Or, more accurately, Legislative prayer, being religious in nature, is in violation the Establishment Clause. but if you violate the Establishment Clause long enough, it's okay."

[A Japanese Student]

Yeah, it's not like James Madison wrote an essay criticizing use of taxpayer money for legislative prayer, right? /s

[rloquitur]

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2025/05/05/youll-never-guess-whos-responsible-for-that-brutal-home-invasion-in-la-n4939490

Thanks, Joe.

[jb]

https://cbs12.com/news/local/arrest-made-in-deadly-home-invasion-killing-pregnant-teen-grandmother-in-vero-beach-indian-river-county-sheriffs-office-treasure-coast-florida-news-march-18-2025

Thanks, Trump.

[rloquitur]

Biden let people in (through fecklessness or design). Democrats protected criminal aliens. Someone is dead. Fuck you.

[jb]

Biden was deporting people faster than Trump, so seems like he was doing more to fix the problem instead of trying to kick out students who write controversial op-eds.

Also completely unclear from the statements from ICE so far when these guys everyone the country or if any of them had run into law enforcement such that the ICE detainer would have been relevant. More convenient just to blame every bad thing immigrants do on your political opponents. Since Trump is meanwhile diverting law enforcement resources to immigration and kicked off the massive 2020 Trump crime wave, I'm henceforth blaming all citizen murders on him.

[rloquitur]

Trump has shut down illegals crossing to a trickle[ your guy was flying people in.

https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/2025/05/05/fauci-loses-the-beagles-win-trumps-nih-director-shutters-last-cruel-beagle-experimentation-labs-n2188702

Saving America, one beagle at a time. Beagles are such good dogs. Not as good as a Great Pyrenees though.

[David Nieporent]

Trump has shut down illegals crossing to a trickle[ your guy was flying people in.

Still don't understand the difference between illegal and refugee, I see.

[rloquitur]

Whatev.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Still don't understand the difference between illegal and refugee, I see.'
Apparently neither do you.

[David Nieporent]

It's that IKYABWAI? wit that MAGA is so famous for!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

No, we had a construction boom under Biden. Now that business cycle is over. That business cycle actually began in 2019 and illegal crossings spiked when Trump was president. Construction is heavily Latino. Then Covid made crossing plunge but fentanyl deaths and violent crime spiked in 2020. Biden had those things declining along with illegal crossings in 2024. Biden is looking like a near great president now that we have a better understanding of what he inherited in 2020.

[apedad]

Current outstanding student loan amount: $1.6 trillion
Current outstanding car loan amount: $1.655 trillion
Current outstanding mortgage amount: $2.8 trillion
Current outstanding credit card amount: $1.21 trillion
Current outstanding medical debt amount: $220 billion

I had guessed the medical debt would have been higher.

These are all US data.

We sure have a lot of debt.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I had guessed the medical debt would have been higher."

You didn't think it through, then. The number of people with mortgages far outnumbers the people with significant medical debts, and so, even though the most expensive medical procedures like heart transplants can rival the cost of a house, you'd have to expect the total to be lower than for mortgages.

You probably fell for the talk about medical debts being responsible for most bankruptcies. But that wouldn't because medical debts represent most of the bankruptcy debts, they're more in the nature of the straw that breaks the camel's back; They land unpredictably and you're not in a good position to refuse to undertake them.

[M L]

Seems crazy that car debt is almost 2/3 of mortgage debt.

Re medical debt, my impression is that it is routinely written off and rarely enforced. Baked into the business model.

[Moderation4ever]

The car debt will seem more reasonable if you realize that there are a lot more car loans than there are home loans. Today most household will have at least two cars, that includes households were the family only rents.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The $20k EV truck will be the last car I ever buy. I have a 3 row SUV that I will keep for long distances that will never hit 200k miles that seems built for 300k miles. Personal vehicles will be obsolete by 2035…plan accordingly.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good luck to you and your Amazon Yugo (if Bezos ever gets around to building them).

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

In the best neighborhoods in America people drive golf carts. Duuuuuuh

[M L]

Looks like mortgage debt is actually about 12.6 trillion, not 2.8. Car debt seems accurate at 1.66 trillion. That ratio makes more sense to me.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc

apedad, where did you get your figures? Is there a digit missing?

[Armchair]

Sorry, missed this. You're absolutely right.

[apedad]

Good catch. Might be a typo.

[Frank Drackman]

I’ve got zero of all of those, probably because I pay cash for everything, you know what the interest is on a 30 yr $500,000 mortgage?
Good, cause I don’t, wrote a check. Most I’ve paid in actual Dead Presidents was $25,000 for my ZO6, guy wanted 30, something about that smell does something to sellers
Oh, I used to have loans, when I was young and stupid, Think I was paying %15 on my GSXR750, and my credit card was even worse, the Student loans were a good deal, no interest for a few years while in school/military, paid them off as soon as the interest started, I’m Jewish, I should be charging interest, not paying it
Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Current outstanding student loan amount: $1.6 trillion
Current outstanding car loan amount: $1.655 trillion
Current outstanding mortgage amount: $2.8 trillion

The car loans are depreciating assets.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I honestly feel sorry for people that drive Lamborghinis…do they realize China has $10k cars that can outperform their $200k car??

[Armchair]

Current outstanding mortgage amount seems low. I'd double check that.

The fed puts it at 12.61 trillion https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc.

Mortgage debt should realistically outweigh everything else combined

[rloquitur]

https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/2025/05/05/fauci-loses-the-beagles-win-trumps-nih-director-shutters-last-cruel-beagle-experimentation-labs-n2188702

Beagles are good doggos. Not as good as a Great Pyrenees, though.

[Sarcastr0]

I'ma call bullshit on you caring about animal testing alluva sudden.

[rloquitur]

They're so mean to the doggos. I love my dog. He's a Great Pyrenees. Best doggo evah.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm more of a Jack Russell fan.

[Speaking for normal people]

While Volokh is making grave hay out of sperm races -- and damaging his reputation...the Mifepristone damage gets worse and worse . I wanted to know what the data was so....

"The study used insurance claims data that includes more than 865,000 medication abortions prescribed between 2017 and 2023, resulting in what is described as the largest-ever dataset on chemical abortion."

[SRG2]

I wanted to know what the data was so....

The paper was mentioned in this Reason article and you are not interested in the data, only in anything which says that Mifepristone is bad.

[Zarniwoop]

Holy crap I wish Reason had a "collapse thread" option.

For the Wednesday open thread, can each usual suspect regardless of political valence just say "see the identical arguments I made about Garcia to counter the identical arguments about Garcia that you're making"?

Y'all are getting seriously boring.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Federal Reserve should have been created by an amendment…seems unconstitutional to me. And we passed a lot of amendments around that time and so they knew how to do it.

[Dillinger]

word is Philander Knox passed the 16th all on his lonesome when they didn't really have the votes.

[rloquitur]

https://www.steynonline.com/15267/war-of-1812-the-rematch

This is kinda funny.

[Krayt]

MTG is mad at Trump now, thinks he's listening to the wrong people, and is about to go to war with Iran.

I suppose she'll be a sympathetic guest on CNN shortly.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Republicans that oppose helping Ukraine like MTG are dumber than the Democrats that oppose Israel’s military action in Gaza. I actually have friends that are Palestinian (Jerusalem and not Gaza), and friends with cousins in the IDF, and so I have empathy for Palestinians even while understanding why Israel is doing what they are doing…but I want the war over obviously which would make my friends’ cousins in the IDF safer btw. But why would I want the Ukraine War over when Ukrainians want to fight?? So should I have empathy for the Russians that are in Ukraine killing Ukrainians?? So desire for a ceasefire only makes sense in Ukraine if you believe Zelensky is a warmonger which is super dumb. And we aren’t spending a lot on defense right now which makes the notion helping Ukraine means we can’t help WNC absurd.

[grb]

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Monday slammed U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign against American higher education as she unveiled a half-billion-euro plan to attract foreign researchers. “The role of science in today’s world is questioned. The investment in fundamental, free and open research is questioned. What a gigantic miscalculation,” von der Leyen said. “Science has no passport, no gender, no ethnicity or political party.”

Appearing alongside French President Emmanuel Macron at Paris’ storied Sorbonne University on Monday, von der Leyen said the “Choose Europe for Science” initiative would put forward a €500 million program from 2025 to 2027 to attract foreign researchers to “help support the best and the brightest researchers and scientists from Europe and around the world.” Macron said the country would commit another €100 million from the France 2030 program to woo researchers and make Europe a “safe haven” for science.

“There can be no lasting democracy without free and open science,” he said.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Here's an interesting article on the film tariff thing:

https://www.slashfilm.com/1851758/donald-trump-tariffs-films-shot-outside-america/

Lots of truth arising out of the collision with error these days, eh, John Stuart Mill?

[Armchair]

-

[grb]

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent just said this :

“President Trump intends to usher in the most prosperous decade in American history—but not at the cost of the spiritual degradation of the working class.”

Huh. Ya know, before Trump came along, prosperity was just prosperity. I don't recall anyone worrying whether people's benefit from the economic expansions of - say - Clinton or Reagan were tainted by "spiritual degradation". So I'm guessing the kind of prosperity Bessent describes is a special kind. A limited kind. Maybe not as beneficial as normal prosperity. Perhaps not even beneficial at all - but also not spiritually degrading like normal gross prosperity we've seen from previous presidents.

And please note only the working class must worry whether their prosperity is acceptable. You don't get the impression Bessent or Trump concern themselves about spiritual degradation as they cash out. It doesn't seem to be a issue for the Betters of the working class. Their prosperity remains the plain & simple dollar kind.

[ThePublius]

You know, Trump and co. are living rent-free in your head. You post incessantly anti-Trump and cabinet junk every open thread. We get it, but it's tiring. Don't you have a day job?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Benghazi!!!

[hobie]

Here's my impression of Sean Hannity over the past 30 years in his staccato, googly-eyed rapid voice:

"Benghazi! Reverend Wright! Sistah Soldiah! "

[Frank Drackman]

Here's my impression of every talking head on PMS-NBC, Clinton News Network, A-nything B-ut C-onservatives, National Pubic Radio, since November 2016
"TRUMP blablabla TRUMP! blablabla TRUMP! blablabla TRUMP! blablabla......."
Seriously, I think most of their audience are Trump supporters watching for the comedy, when I need a good laugh, I'll just watch "Morning Schmoe" from November 6, (the 2016 post-erection one is even better, because they knew they were going to lose last year)

Frank

[hobie]

Once again, The Publius does not address the assertion

[ThePublius]

That's right I wasn't addressing the assertion! Wow, you are so perceptive!

[grb]

Maybe I've been unfair to Donald Trump. Of course he's well-known for stiffing independent contractors and small businesses that do work for him. I always thought Trump saw them as nobodies who couldn't afford to fight him for what was owed. Therefore it was easy sport to cheat them.

But what if I was wrong? Maybe Trump decided it would be spiritually degrading for them to get paid. Maybe he was looking out for their spiritual well-being all along!

[BrotherMovesOn]

People often underestimate his 4-D chess compassion.
It's right there people!

[santamonica811]

grb,
Exactly! You don't have to stick you fingers or penis in a woman's vagina to rape someone. That's sexual rape, yes. But you can economically rape a person or business . . . it's satisfying in a different way. And for Trump--because it it's non-criminal and low-dollar-amounts in these cases, it was essentially risk-free.

Can you imagine the psychic joy he got from screwing those thousands (tens of thousands?) of hard-working Americans over the course of decades, at all his hotels, golf courses, etc.? It's gotta be an incalculable amount of, um, . . . what's the opposite term for karma???

[apedad]

Psychopathy

A personality construct characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, along with traits of boldness, disinhibition, and egocentrism. It is a condition marked by the absence of empathy and blunting of other affective states, making psychopaths highly manipulative. Psychopathy is associated with egocentric and antisocial behavior, lack of remorse, and often criminal tendencies.

Holy fuck that's the definition of Trump.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Working class Americans in unions were able to somewhat deal with the inflation of the 1970s because union contracts could account for it. The working class Americans of the 2000s not only were unionized but millions of manufacturing jobs were being shipped to China and so the inflation of the 2000s was much worse. And sure enough we had a lost decade economically in the 2000s unlike the 1970s. Unfortunately Trump was 16 years too late but he would have been the perfect president in 2000.

[Mr. Bumble]

For all you boomers who grew up watching wall to wall westerns on broadcast TV in the 50s;
Will Hutchins (Sugarfoot) has passed away at age 94.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/will-hutchins-dead-sugarfoot-1236197846/

[ThePublius]

I was never into the Westerns as a kid, but I am now! I have never heard of Sugarfoot. I finished binge watching Yancey Derringer, and now I'm into season 3 of The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp. I'll have to look into Sugarfoot. Sounds like fun. Thanks.

There's so much stuff to watch in Westerns from that era!

[grb]

"Detailed Army plans for a potential military parade on President Donald Trump’s birthday in June call for more than 6,600 soldiers, at least 150 vehicles, 50 helicopters, seven bands and possibly a couple thousand civilians, The Associated Press has learned."

It will be an interesting test. Not for MAGA, of course. They love our banana republic president, applaud remaking the U.S. into a banana republic country, and want even more cartoon theatrics and empty gimmicks. Per MAGA, the more WWE-style governance, the better.

But it will test normal people. They haven't had much use in recent times for goose-stepping soldiers and an endless procession of military hardware. My guess is that stays true and this becomes yet another cringe-worthy Trump embarrassment. But we'll have to wait and see.

I wonder if there'll be balloons and floats.......

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/05/the-man-child-president.html

[Frank Drackman]

It'll be about the same as Barry Osama's parade, just without the break dancers

[hobie]

Reagan - "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Biden - “Don’t even think about moving on one single inch of NATO territory!”
Trump - "Vladimir, stop!!!"

A cuck president for a newly minted bunch of cucks. One day the fever will break, and you pussies will look in the mirror...

[grb]

Yep. One of these three does not belong. And that's true even before you realize Trump's falsetto whine was, yes, a tweet.

Because that's what you expect from a strong resolute leader conducting foreign policy:
Whimpering tweets

[ThePublius]

Biden: “I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.”

[Krayt]

if Russia invades

Then there should be congressional hearings about why the president had such poor judgement he backed off supplying Ukraine and the west is now in a world of hurt, to say nothing of ignoring the lesson from the early days of WWII, as well as the rule when your enemy is down, you don't be magnanimous, you crush them full speed ahead, we are shocked, shocked!

[BrotherMovesOn]

You harangued often about this in the run-up to the election, and I agreed with you. But you hedged.
Even though the clear, most likely result of a Trump victory would be an eventual capitulation to Putin, you blasted prosecutors for badgering Trump.
Let's say it's 'arguable' whether the indictments against the former President were valid or not
Dead horse. But now you have the "rolling tanks through Europe guy" feeling pretty good.
"Thanks for the help Krayt!" Love ya, Vlad
Congats!

[hobie]

“If you can convince the lowest white man, he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him someone to look down on and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
- Lyndon Johnson.

In an unrelated topic, it seems the Trump brothers have been crossing the globe making billions of deals on the name of the big guy. A thousand Burizmas, if you will.

I know you hillbillies are worn out after 4 years of Hunter and his oil paintings. So I don't expect you to disparage this right away. We have to be civil. But, please, don't be harsh when your rectitude kicks in on the Trump crime family

[Frank Drackman]

you keep saying "Hillbilly" I'm gonna have to tell everyone about your "Stolen Valor", maybe not as bad as Senator "Danang Dick" Blooming-Idiot-Thal, but worse than Governor Light-in-the-Combat-Boots Sergeant Pepper Waltz, and a little hint, even "Hillbillies" know there aren't any "Marine Rangers"

Frank

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

Hey, if there's a playground near your house I know a way you can pocket a quick $675k.

[SRG2]

But the Trump scions grifting around the world is different from Burisma because the Trump Exception applies to them as well.

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

What's the difference between what Russia is doing in Crimea and Old Russia (Southern Ukraine) and Israel in Syria?

[ReaderY]

I found it interesting that the Trump Administration is defending the FDA’s approval of mifepristone in Missouri v. FDA, a case in which Missouri is challenging the approval.

I completely agree the suit has no merit. First, Missouri’s claims have no connection to Texas and have no business being pursued in Texas federal court. Missouri needs to sue in Missouri federal court.

Second, I think the District Court’s decison in what is now GenBioPro v. Raynes was entirely correct and should control the decision here. That opinion rejected Genbiopro’s claim that the FDA’s approval of mifepristone preempted West Virginia’s ban on it. It found that the FDA’s unusual anti-preemption language reserving the power to regulate medical care to states permits a state to ban on moral grounds a drug that the FDA has approved on medical grounds, so there simply isn’t any conflict between the two.

I agree that’s not necessrily a standing issue at the beginning stages of the case. I think GenBioPro’s preemption argument, although losing, was non-frivolous and hence Missouri is free to make the same argument in another district. However, I think non-preemption is the correct interpretation of the statute, which means that on the merits, Missouri loses.

I also think a strategy of claiming federal law preempts state law in order to get standing to strike down federal law is a very foolish position for Missouri to take, in addition to being an incorrect one.

I think West Virginia was wise, in addition to being legally correct, to defend its abortion law on grounds that what the states and the federal government do are different and non-conflicting. The FD&C Act’s special anti-preemption language means that approval simply unblocks a federal ban on selling a drug, and doesn’t preempt state decisions to ban it on different grounds. The FDA addresses only the efficacy and safety of the drugs it regulates, leaving to the states to address issues like their morality.

Moreover the strategy could easily backfire on Missouri. Missouri is basically regurgitating claims made in the AHM case that the FDA didn’t follow the law in approving mifepristone, claims that were widely regarded as based on bogus science and highly questionable evidence. In order to get standing, Missouri has to concede something - federal preemption - that one would think a state interested in enforcing its laws would be interested in fighting. And once it concedes preemption, if it loses its laws are preempted.

Missouri is, in effect, going all in, betting everything it has. on a very bad hand. Given the skepticism that AHA’s merits case got at the Supreme Court oral argument even among justices who signed on to Dobbs, and given that Missouri’s merits hand is no better, that seems like a surefire way to lose.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Skank

[not guilty]

President Trump on April 23, 2025 issued an Executive Order that purports to abrogate consideration of disparate impact in applying the Civil Rights Act of 1964. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/

Neither legislating nor interpreting statutes enacted by Congress is within the province of the executive branch of the federal government. "Explicit and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution prescribe and define the respective functions of the Congress and of the Executive in the legislative process." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 945 (1983). "There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes." Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998).

The Framers envisioned that the final “interpretation of the laws” would be “the proper and peculiar province of the courts.” Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 639, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2244 (2024), quoting The Federalist No. 78, at 525 (A. Hamilton). In the foundational decision of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall famously declared that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). And in the following decades, the Court understood “interpret[ing] the laws, in the last resort,” to be a “solemn duty” of the Judiciary. United States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141, 162 (1841) (Story, J., for the Court). When the meaning of a statute was at issue, the judicial role was to “interpret the act of Congress, in order to ascertain the rights of the parties.” Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497, 515 (1840).

SCOTUS interpreted Title VII pf the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to recognize the disparate impact doctrine in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Even if there is no discriminatory intent, an employer may not use a job requirement that functionally excludes members of a certain race if it has no relation to measuring performance of job duties. Testing or measuring procedures cannot be determinative in employment decisions unless they have some connection to the job.

The Griggs Court recognized that unlawful discrimination could be found on the basis of disparate impact as well as an overtly discriminatory purpose. Employers thus could not camouflage their discriminatory intent through ostensibly neutral tests that disfavored certain groups without being targeted to test their job ability.

The Court in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989), modified the evidentiary showing that a Title VII plaintiff would need to offer in order to make a prima facie showing of employment discrimination so as to make disparate impact claims more difficult to prove. Congress responded by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1991, https://web.archive.org/web/20210810232319/https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/1745/text , which per section 3 thereofwas intended:

(1) to provide appropriate remedies for intentional discrimination and unlawful harassment in the workplace;
(2) to codify the concepts of "business necessity" and "job related" enunciated by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), and in the other Supreme Court decisions prior to Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989);
(3) to confirm statutory authority and provide statutory guidelines for the adjudication of disparate impact suits under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.); and
(4) to respond to recent decisions of the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to
provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination.

IOW, SCOTUS in 1971 in Griggsrecognized the disparate impact doctrine. The Court in 1989 in Ward's Cove made such claims harder to prove. Congress in 1991 turned back the clock and codified .Griggs.

The President has no authority to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes in the manner that Trump is here attempting to do.

[Martinned]

Neither legislating nor interpreting statutes enacted by Congress is within the province of the executive branch of the federal government.

I don't think that's right (the "interpreting" bit). The president can't see that the laws be faithfully executed without first trying to work out what they mean. It's just that his views about what the law means are always subordinate to the views of the courts, if and when they are called upon to give their view.

[ReaderY]

I think this analysis, while true on its own terms, misses the point. Prosecution and prosecutorial discretion are execruive functions. So President Trump is as free to order federal enforcement agencies not to pursue disparate impact Civil Rights cases as President Obama was to order them not to pursue simple possession of marijuana or illegal aliens who did not commit other crimes, and President Clinton was to order them not to enforce the sodomy laws.

Mr. Trump’s approach recognizes no concept of law existing in a Platonic space independent of enforcement that is so familiar to lawyers’ thinking. From his point of view, the law is what he chooses to enforce.

It is true, however, that the order would not affect private civil lawsuits.

[Martinned]

It is true, however, that the order would not affect private civil lawsuits.

Or a subsequent administration.

[tylertusta]

Can explain to me how an EO talking about changing regulations for Title VI and Title VIII is somehow actually about changing regulations for Title VII?

I'm not a lawyer. I'm also just a dumb Marine, so I'm happy that I don't need to take my shoes off to count to past ten.

In boot camp they even told me that six, seven, and eight are different numbers!

[not guilty]

Uh, the executive order refers to both Title VI and Title VII (see ¶6).

It helps to read a document before commenting on it.

Apparently the Marines are still looking for a few good men.

[tylertusta]

Mr. Guilty, given that your conduct just in these couple of comments demonstrates a lack of integrity, the Marines would never accept you on those grounds alone. If you somehow had found yourself in the service, you would have quickly been drummed out. Someone like me would have gladly signed the discharge papers- assuming that your lying ass didn't land you in front of a NJP or a court martial before we gave you the boot. That you claim to be an officer of the court but can't be counted on to even be honest in an anonymous comment thread says a lot about your character, and it isn't saying anything good.

Your original screed spilled a lot of pixels about how the administration was going against precedent on Title VII (discrimination in employment) and that the administration was going against clear-cut laws to that effect. Yet the EO's only reference to Title VII was to evaluate current cases and may in the end not involve changes at all! The EO makes all of its changes for Title VI (discrimination in Federal assistance), not VII.

So not only can you not count, but you lie about what other people say, too.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Do any of my other Volokh sluts wish they were with me dancing at the Pink Pony Club?? Just having fun out in West Hollywood??

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

You use alot of proper nouns I've never heard of. Are they from the B.C. era like your birthday?

[Martinned]

Has anyone figured out yet what happens if, by law, only the Chief Justice can hold a particular office, and the President purports to fire the holder of that office even though he can't fire the Chief Justice?

Because for me that's a perfect hypo to show that the only sensible answer is that the President has only the powers to hire and fire that are expressly or implicitly foreseen in the statute that creates a particular office.

[Brett Bellmore]

The flaw in your theory is that judicial offices have explicit constitutional protection against firing, unlike other jobs in the federal government. So you can't really analogize between judges and other positions in this regard.

A further point is that the President is the head of the executive branch, and "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Why wouldn't he be able to fire his own employees?

Judges are members of a different branch of government, the President may nominate them, but they don't work for him.

[Martinned]

I'll grant you that it's a bit of an unusual situation, but that's often the case with useful hypos. If you like you can envisage a statute that says: "The Vice-President shall be the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission".

Why wouldn't he be able to fire his own employees?

1. They are not his employees. They are the employees of the United States. Whatever Trump may think, "l'état, c'est moi" is not the law in the US.

2. Because the law says otherwise. It's the President's job to implement the laws made by Congress.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. Yes, actually they ARE his own employees. They do the work of the Executive branch, and "The executive Power shall be vested in a President..." Like He-Man, he has the power, and he's just delegating.

2. Ah, but if being able to fire his own people is an inherent power of the office, Congress can't take it away with a statute.

Being able to fire people is an inherent part of being in charge; If you can't fire people, in the end you can't force them to follow your orders.

[Sarcastr0]

1. The strong unitary executive may be de rigour for MAGA, but it hasn't been endorsed by the Supreme Court yet. The oaths alone seem evidence you're overstating things.

2. Your 'inherent power' isn't in the text of the Constitution. And current Supreme Court precedent says otherwise.

Being able to fire people is an inherent part of being in charge
You got this from...vibes again isn't it? There are a ton of examples of being in charge and yet not being able to people. First to mind are employees with 'for cause' protections. Is no one in charge of such monsters?

It's a pinched idea of authority that requires that kind of threat.

If you can't fire people, in the end you can't force them to follow your orders.
https://paperbackparadise.bigcartel.com/product/man-hell-11-x-17-print

And you are also excluding the middle - at-will isn't required for your 'how do I deal with insubordinate employees' issue.

[Martinned]

It's fascinating how all those Silicon Valley types who push this unitary executive idea view the management of their own companies. It's like they can't conceive of any other way to run a company than the Zuckerberg/Musk model where one person can just do whatever he likes.

(A version of this also came up at Paramount last year, when the old controlling shareholders apointed three co-CEOs. Everyone in the US thought that that was ridiculous, and a clear sign that they wanted to sell. But why would it be? Why does a company need a single absolute ruler? Arguably that is bad for the same reason that an absolute ruler over a country is bad: because it results in someone invading Russia in winter.)

[Sarcastr0]

The 'if we can't fire you at any moment, we can't manage you' is mistaking management for control.

It's all very monarchical. See Curtis Yarvin - that's the worldview growing on MAGA like a fungus.

[tylertusta]

From a normative partisan politics perspective, I'm impressed that it took this long (over a century!) for one of the political parties to ditch the consensus on the federal bureaucracy.

I don't think we should be at all surprised that the consensus has finally ended given the ever-growing missteps that the bureaucracy has made. It was only a matter of time.

[Sarcastr0]

From a normative perspective, Dark Enlightenment is shit from a butt, and when people start hauling out the big words it does not cover what it is.

It is not really worth engaging with beyond that.

[tylertusta]

Thank you for the driveby troll.

[Sarcastr0]

Yep, you're not going to get me to take neo-feudalism seriously, even if you call it 'the consensus on the federal bureaucracy.'

Trolling is all that illiberal nonsense deserves.

[tylertusta]

... you're not going to get me to take neo-feudalism seriously...

Not sure where in your fevered imagination you got this from my reply, but whatever man. Take a deep breath and maybe touch some grass.

I was referring to both parties' maintaining the civil service system of the federal bureaucracy and how both of them refrained from blowing up the system. As Brett explained, the GOP got the raw end of the deal but didn't undertake any significant effort to unmake it until Trump's second term.

Trolling is all that illiberal nonsense deserves.

The good news is that you're basically admitting that you never intended to have an honest discussion with me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Until recently we've only had a party and a half at the federal level; The federal GOP had a severe case of Stockholm syndrome after that long stretch in the 20th century when the Democrats controlled Congress for decades on end; For a couple political lifetimes the only way a Republican could get anything done in Congress was to suck up to the Democrats, it became an ingrained institutional reflex.

[tylertusta]

I think it goes beyond that. Political ideology used to not be as rigidly enforced as it is today. You used to have liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, because what made you a Republican or a Democrat wasn't because you were either a liberal/conservative, but rather a few different things such as geography, religion, views towards business/labor, views towards foreign affairs, and so on.

Conservatives across both parties could find common ground that transcended party lines, like with the passage of FOPA.

[Sarcastr0]

None of that has anything to do with the strong unitary executive.

A remarkably authoritarian paradigm and the excuse that it's some kind of Democratic push that the GOP got conned into doesn't make any sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, none of that has to do with the unitary executive, which is a product of the first sentence of Article 2.

It was a response to Tylertusta's comment about how long it took for one of the parties to give up on the idea of an untouchable federal bureaucracy.

Since said bureaucracy has long been captured by the Democratic party, and does that party's bidding even when Republicans are nominally in charge of the executive branch, the Democratic party naturally has an institutional interest in defending the bureaucracy's independence from Republican Presidents. What needed explaining is why Republicans played along with the game for so long.

[David Nieporent]

1. Yes, actually they ARE his own employees. They do the work of the Executive branch, and "The executive Power shall be vested in a President..." Like He-Man, he has the power, and he's just delegating.

Nope.

1. Congress created the hypothetical position we're discussing.
2. Congress appropriated the money to pay for the position.
3. Congress assigned the duties to that position.
4. Congress decided who would fill the position.
5. The people who filled the position took an oath to the constitution, not to the president.

If POTUS pays them out of his/her own pocket, then they're his/her employees. Otherwise, they're the people's employees.

[Mr. Bumble]

" Otherwise, they're the people's employees."
What a quaint notion.

[SRG2]

According to most of the cultists, Trump has the power to hire, fire, divert funding, overrule the judiciary, overrule Congress, and ignore the Constitution. No argument you use about limitations on presidential power applies to Trump.

[Martinned]

Surprisingly, Friedrich Merz just failed to get the absolute majority of the vote he needs in the Bundestag to get elected Chancellor. I am told that's the first time in the history of the Federal Republic that that's happened. There were 328 MdBs from the coalition parties present and voting, but only 310 of them voted for Merz, which meant that he was 6 votes short of the 316 votes he legally needed.

Now there's going to be a second vote with the same rules. If he again doesn't get his 316 votes, the third round will be based on a relative majority vote, meaning that in the third round Merz gets the job as long as he gets more votes than anyone else.

[Mr. Bumble]

If at first you don't succeed; try, try again.

[Martinned]

You think that Germany should just go without a Chancellor for the next five years?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, maybe not, but what's the point of requiring an absolute majority unless you fail to get one, in which case a relative majority will do? Why not cut straight to the relative majority? The requirement for an absolute one is doing no work.

Does the office have reduced powers if elected by a relative majority? That would at least make some sense.

[apedad]

It's the first time that a Kanzler has not been elected on the first vote by absolute majority, so I don't think they really considered the differences between absolute and relative majorities.

I'm pretty sure the jump down to relative majority just reflects the need to quickly establish a functioning govt even if the coalition can't establish an absolute majority.

FYI, the vote was held by secret ballot so it was not immediately clear — and might never be known — who had defected from Merz's camp.

The lower house of parliament — called the Bundestag — has 14 days to elect a candidate with an absolute majority. Merz can run again, but other lawmakers can also throw their hat in the ring. There is no limit to the number of votes that can be held within the two-week period.

If Merz or any other candidate fails to get that majority within the 14 days, the constitution allows for the president to appoint the candidate who wins the most votes as chancellor, or to dissolve the Bundestag and hold a new national election.

https://www.ctpost.com/news/world/article/german-lawmakers-vote-whether-to-approve-mertz-as-20312139.php

[apedad]

FYI, the Kanzler (Chancellor) is the Head of Government while the German President is Head of State.

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

[Martinned]

This has come up at the Land level a couple of times in recent years, most notably in Thuringia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Thuringian_state_election#Election_of_Kemmerich

[Martinned]

The idea is that the drafters of the Constitution preferred to have a Chancellor elected by absolute majority of votes cast. So they required that for the first vote. If no one achieves an absolute majority the first time, the idea is that they get another opportunity to persuade the MdBs to back them.

Voting someone in with a relative majority is very much the second best, because that opens the door to 1933-type situations. (Remember, everything about German constitutional law can be understood by assuming that the point is to avoid another Nazi takeover.)

[David Nieporent]

a relative majority vote

Speak English! It's called a plurality!

[ThePublius]

"Relative majority" isn't wrong, it's a synonym for plurality.

[David Nieporent]

Next you're going to tell me that Celsius and "colour" and kilometers "aren't wrong."

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there is a distinction, though: Absolute majorities in legislative votes usually require, not a majority of those present, but a majority of the entire chamber, including those who don't vote, and vacant seats. This prevents gaming votes by holding them while some of the members are absent.

According to wikipedia, you've got a three stage process. In the first stage, the President proposes a candidate, who needs an absolute majority to be elected.

If this fails, you move to the second stage, where the bundstag can nominate its own candidates, who still need an absolute majority.

If that fails, they hold one last vote to see if they can reach an absolute majority, and failing that, the President can either confirm the plurality winner, or dissolve the Bundstag.

Would that be correct?

[Martinned]

Yes. See my comment below which quotes the exact text from the Basic Law.

The point is to avoid a Weimar Republic-style Mexican standoff between different groups of extremists who mutually hate each other to a greater or lesser degree, with all the flukes that such a situation can produce. A Chancellor candidate either needs the backing of half of all members (present or not), or the President has discretion about whether to appoint them or to ask the people to vote again.

[Martinned]

P.S. You can imagine that this gets more messy at Land level, because most Länder have the same system, but they don't have a President. So in situations like Thuringia in 2020 where the election of the prime minister is a mess, and the winner wins with a relative majority but not an absolute majority, it's difficult to work out what the answer should be.

[Martinned]

The latest news is that the second round will take place today, apparently in about an hour's time.

The incoming coalition (Christian-Democrats and Social Democrats) are currently negotiating with the Greens and the Left to agree that there should be a second vote today. I haven't found the legal source, but I am told that normally there would be a waiting period of 3 days, but that a 2/3 majority of the Bundestag can decide to waive that majority. Hence the need for talks with the parties of the left.

It looks like the non-crazy parties (i.e. everyone except the AfD) think that a failure to elect a Chancellor today would be a major challenge for Germany's credibility. As a result, the expectation seems to be that a fair few left-wing MdBs will back Merz in the second vote, to make sure he gets through. (Source).

Like apedad said, it was a secret ballot, so it is impossible to say whether the defectors were CDU, CSU, or SPD, and it is equally impossible to rule out that they will defect again on the second ballot.

[Martinned]

For reference, this is what it says in art. 63 of the Basic Law:

Article 63
[Election of the Federal Chancellor]

(1) The Federal Chancellor shall be elected by the Bundestag without debate on the proposal of the Federal President.

(2) The person who receives the votes of a majority of the Members of the Bundestag shall be elected. The person elected shall be appointed by the Federal President.

(3) If the person proposed by the Federal President is not elected, the Bundestag may elect a Federal Chancellor within fourteen days after the ballot by the votes of more than one half of its Members.

(4) If no Federal Chancellor is elected within this period, a new election shall take place without delay, in which the person who receives the largest number of votes shall be elected. If the person elected receives the votes of a majority of the Members of the Bundestag, the Federal President must appoint him within seven days after the election. If the person elected does not receive such a majority, then within seven days the Federal President shall either appoint him or dissolve the Bundestag.

[Martinned]

In the second ballot Merz got 325 votes (still 3 short of how many he was supposed to get). 30 minutes ago he was appointed Chancellor by the President.

[Mr. Bumble]

Democracy, is there any thing it can't do.

[apedad]

Hang on a sec...

BBC reports he won the second vote.

"After hours of uncertainty in the Bundestag, the parties and the president of the Bundestag agreed to hold a second vote, which Merz then won with 325 votes, a majority of nine . . . Merz, 69, was then sworn in as chancellor by President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and his team of 17 ministers were due to take office."

[Magister]

His coalition has 328 seats, so he came up three short of the number he was "supposed to get" although greater than the number he needed. Not as bad as Kevin McCarthy for House Speaker, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sorta won: He didn't get that absolute majority of all members, but he got enough votes to be eligible for the President to declare him the winner.

[Magister]

It seems he got 325 out of 630, unless I'm reading something wrong; he needed 316, more than half, so he did get an absolute majority. His issue was not getting enough on the first vote and still not getting every vote in his coalition the last time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I mis-read it. He did win an absolute majority, finally.

I expect that, unless they actually do ban the opposition, things are going to get even dicier in German politics. And if they do, even dicier in a different way...

[Martinned]

Speaking of Germany, obviously it's not great if the whole world already thinks that the US is run by the far right, for the US government to interfere with an internal German matter by advocating for the German far right party.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-team-clash-berlin-afd-designation-right-wing-extremist/

[Martinned]

Speaking of the AfD's designation as a “proven right-wing extremist organization”, unsurprisingly the AfD has already said it is going to challenge that designation in court. I don't know if the Verfassungsschutz will win, but I assume they prepared their decision on the assumption that the case would end up in the Constitutional Court regardless.

[SRG2]

The complaints are understandable because that's where the regime's sympathies lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

The US thinks the rest of the world is run by the far left. Even the 'right wing' parties in European governments would be considered left-wing by US standards.

But I'm not sure far right and far left actually have the same meanings here and abroad.

[Sarcastr0]

The US thinks the rest of the world is run by the far left. Even the 'right wing' parties in European governments would be considered left-wing by US standards.

You really need to get out more. That may have been true in the early 2000s, but that's not at all true today.

Certainly each country's political parties have their own unique political landscapes, but there's a reason why Trump's been a millstone around the necks of all the European far right parties.

Also AfD keeps stumbling into defending or aping the Nazis.

[rloquitur]

An internal matter? Yeah, just soft-banning a mainstream party.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's how you preserve democracy in the modern world: By taking choices away from the voters. They still get to vote, even if only for the candidates the government approves of, so what's the problem?

[Sarcastr0]

Aren't you the one going off about the paradox of tolerance as an excuse to go after illegals? Consistency - you used to have it!

I may not agree with where Germany comes down on this, but these accusations of Europe as a tyranny because it's a bit more titchy than we are about platforming Nazis.

There are countries that are tyrannical and authoritarian. Check your beloved Argentina or El Salvador before you come at Europe.

Or check the US. Trump is running a purity war across the public and private sectors. No room to complain about Germany. No room without being hypocrites at a level that renders our attempt at criticism nothing but a nationalist tantrum.

[Brett Bellmore]

But we're not talking about people illegally present in a country. We're talking about citizens. Remember, my whole point is that citizens really DO have the rights that illegal aliens don't have.

Have I ever suggested that voters' choices should be restricted? No, never. I have consistently argued that voters are entitled to vote for anyone they damned well please, no restrictions at all.

It's dangerous to let the people currently controlling a government curate who the people are allowed to replace them with. That power basically always gets abused.

[Sarcastr0]

The paradox of tolerance isn’t so limited. You opened this door, and now you want to pick and choose the consequences.

[Brett Bellmore]

I opened the door and firmly nailed it in place at a particular location: Curate who gets to join your country, but you must tolerate anybody who's already a member until they engage in actual violence.

[Sarcastr0]

you must tolerate anybody who's already a member

Your assertion. The paradox holds for members and non-members.

The Nazis were elected. Kind of a worst case scenario for the paradox, and it came from inside the house.

So it looks like you want to use the paradox of tolerance only in the places where it hasn't been proven to be an issue.

[Martinned]

That's how you preserve democracy in the modern world: By taking choices away from the voters.

What do you think the Bill of Rights is?

[Brett Bellmore]

Taking choices away from the government, rather than the voters.

[Sarcastr0]

In a republic, they're pretty aligned.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! The very existence of a Bill of Rights says they didn't believe that for a second.

[Mr. Bumble]

Il Douche strikes again.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just in case you forgot why:

Douche
someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.

[Sarcastr0]

The Bill of Rights was about the tyranny of the majority as much as any other kind of tyranny.

Federalist 51 lays that out.

[tylertusta]

It's pretty rich to read your sharing of complaints about Americans advocating for or at least offering rhetorical support for others nations' political parties.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, this is a failure of perspective.

Is Martinned President of anything?

[tylertusta]

He bitches about American politics every day, yet when someone in the USA does that to a European country, not only does he consider it newsworthy, but something to be chastised as if European politics can't be touched by Americans.

There's no failure of perspective here, Peanut. Just calling out hypocrisy when I see it.

[Sarcastr0]

"someone in the USA."

Whatta joke.

[tylertusta]

I agree. He is a joke.

[Sarcastr0]

You're equating Martinned with Trump.

Not sure if you think that's legit or if you just weren't paying attention. Either way, not a great look.

[Estragon]

Venezuela: Examining Regime Ties to Tren de Aragua

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/32f71f10c36cc482/d90251d5-full.pdf

[David Nieporent]

, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States.

Doesn't count because it's from the Deep State. Only claims pulled out of Stephen Miller's ass are actual facts.

[Mr. Bumble]

"probably"

[David Nieporent]

Probably not, you mean.

So that raises the question: did Trump know that what he was saying was probably not true, or did Trump not know that what he was saying was probably not true?

[Estragon]

Isn’t Trump’s currently operative story still that he didn’t even sign the AEA declaration? Where are all my auto pen people who were all worked up into a tizzy a few weeks back??

[grb]

I believe he threw Marco under the bus on that one....

“We want to get criminals out of our country, number one, and I don’t know when it was signed, because I didn’t sign it,” Trump said. “Other people handled it, but (Secretary of State) Marco Rubio has done a great job and he wanted them out and we go along with that. We want to get criminals out of our country.”

(Trump isn't exactly known for having his flunkies' backs)

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/21/politics/trump-signature-alien-enemies-act-proclamation

[Estragon]

Someone at ODNI fast tracked the FOIA process on this one, obviously…

https://media.freedom.press/media/documents/DF-2025-00379_FR.pdf

[Life of Brian]

P'haps the same person who leaked its existence so they could submit the super-specific FOIA request?

[David Nieporent]

Well, obviously that's more important to discuss than the fact that Trump's people invented a fake invasion so they could try to justify rounding up people here legally who had committed no crimes and send them to a foreign torture prison.

[Estragon]

“Fake invasion”

There is a certain irony in Tulsi Gabbard— who made a name for herself questioning the bogus intel that got us into Iraq— being at the forefront here.

[grb]

But it was Noem who traveled to El Salvador to do a MAGA porn photoshoot. But - hey - she isn't known as “Cosplay Kristi” for nothing!

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/kristi-noem-el-salvador-prison-photo-op-new-low?srsltid=AfmBOoo9RxN7sOkVr7lkyetM3TBcWfGAhZPcPR-K-oiMBt8R9xdnYjkS

[Life of Brian]

Meh -- given the rather transparent alley-oop process of getting this unattributed and apparently rushed document to the open air, I'm going to wait a bit to see what we learn about who actually put it together and why.

[Estragon]

“unattributed and apparently rushed document”

I think that applies more to the AEA declaration they put out that Trump didn’t sign

I’ll also note here that the Annual Threat Assessment, personally presented to Congress by John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, and Pete Hegseth is also curiously bereft of info about this Maduro-backed TDA invasion. It does, however, discuss Colombian and Mexican drug cartels.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf

[Life of Brian]

What's your take on page 6 of the SOCM? Did they maybe change to white redactions and forget to label them?

[Estragon]

Probably. Scriveners error? Can’t wait for your extremely plausible theory. All I see right now is conjecture to justify Steven Millers bullshit.

What are we to make of the omission of TdA from the ATA I wonder?

Miller is on record as early as 2023 talking about using the AEA for deportations. I realize you’re playing obtuse for rhetorical purposes here but it’s pretty clear what’s going on.

[Life of Brian]

Can’t wait for your extremely plausible theory.

Having co-drafted many thousands of documents in my lifetime, I don't know that it's a theory as much as an observation: an accumulation of stray blank lines at the end of the text spilled over onto a new page.

But that's the sort of thing that gets caught and addressed during the most rudimentary proofreading. Thus my prediction that this was a rushed/hack job.

[Estragon]

“Now that the public can read the Intelligence Community’s analysis that the Maduro regime does not direct Tren de Aragua, Director Gabbard should explain why her public descriptions of this intelligence failed to correspond with the IC’s findings.”

https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1376

[David Nieporent]

I anticipated from the Rivabot a "Who cares what the Deep State IC says? Trump is president and if he wants to just lie, an imaginary provision of Article II says that courts must pretend to believe him." I did not anticipate, however, the "I don't know who's running the ODNI" from LoB.

[David Nieporent]

I suppose next will be, "Well, Trump has access to intelligence that the ODNI doesn't."

[Life of Brian]

"I mean, it's like totally on ODNI letterhead!"

As is so often the case, if you were actually litigating against a document like this, I have no doubt you'd quickly come up with a dozen ways to rip it to shreds. This faux solemn institutional reverence because some unknown person typed some words in a document that you happen to like is really tiresome.

[Life of Brian]

David probably gets his yuks on April Fools Day by actually quoting people correctly.

I hate to interrupt the end-zone dancing over someone writing and leaking this without Gabbard finding out about it, but unfortunately drawing an arrow to the head of an org chart doesn't say anything at all about the provenance of this particular document.

[David Nieporent]

So, actually dumb rather than just playing dumb.

[David Nieporent]

Meanwhile, he's-smart-not-stupid-like-everyone-says Donald Trump is unaware that Veterans Day is a federal holiday.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, Nieporent must be re-barfing breathless headlines again. Link?

[David Nieporent]

Ah, Nieporent must be re-barfing breathless headlines again. Link?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114457666559426766

[Magister]

For the United States, World War II ended later, after dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Official celebration of the victory still exists in Rhode Island, according to Wikipedia.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, given your track record I figured whatever it was wouldn't actually say anything about Veterans Day. Thanks for not disappointing.

[Estragon]

Hahaha wut? I mean, I suppose you’re correct in that the words “Veterans Day” do not appear in that “truth”.

Were you off on November 11th this year? I was.

[Life of Brian]

Good for you, I'm sure -- though I take it you mean last year. Were you off on November 11 in 2023?

[Estragon]

“We will not be closing the Country for these two very important Holidays, November 11 and May 8, World War I and World War II, because we already have too many Holidays in America”

Too many Holidays! Including that one that falls on Nov. 11th…. What was it called again?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, "didn't look at calendar before posting" would have been a perfectly reasonable gripe. But the story y'all actually decided to run with is just TDS people doing TDS things.

[Sarcastr0]

Does this kind of missing-the-point pedantry work well for you elsewhere?

Because it's sure hasn't been covering you in glory around here!

[Life of Brian]

Man, I got the three-troll pile on! Must be over the target.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, given your track record I figured whatever it was wouldn't actually say anything about Veterans Day. Thanks for not disappointing.

Are you playing stupid in homage to your cult leader, or does it just come naturally to you?

[Life of Brian]

I understand you're mad that I caught you lying yet again, but there's no one to blame but yourself.

As usual, if what he actually says is so bad, why the incessant need to try to lather it up with telepathic dot-connecting?

[grb]

As for Trump's actual proposal, that was just a brief addled spasm of his barely functioning brain. It's already been forgotten. They say dementia hits the memory first:

"The White House has backed off President Donald Trump’s stunning social media proposal to change the name of Veterans Day to “Victory Day for World War I” and will settle for keeping the name while adding a proclamation hailing American victory in World War I."

“We are not renaming Veterans Day,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told ABC News on Friday. “It will just be an additional proclamation that goes out on that day.”

"The quick about-face by the White House came after Trump stirred up opposition from veterans groups to his late-night post Thursday on Truth Social: “Many of our allies and friends are celebrating May 8th as Victory Day, but we did more than any other country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II. I am hereby renaming May 8th as Victory Day for World War II and November 11th as Victory Day for World War I.”

"The argument could be made that victory for World War II on May 8, 1945, was way off the mark since the war in the Pacific raged on and did not end until the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about Japan’s official surrender on Sept. 2, 1945. Trump also could have faced a major fight with Congress, since name changes for a federal holiday such as Veterans Day would require congressional approval."

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/05/05/white-house-retreat-trumps-short-lived-proposal-rename-veterans-day.html

As an aside, Trump's statement, " .... but we did more than any other country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II." is also deeply ignorant. But the man never seems to run short of ways to be uninformed (or plain damn stupid) about any & every subject.

[grb]

When the next medical textbooks are written on dementia and/or advanced cognitive decay, I bet the authors provide long quotes from Trump to illustrate the ravaging cost of these diseases. Trump on Alcatraz (I think) :

"Well, I guess I was supposed to be a moviemaker. We're talking, we started with the movie making. It will end. I mean it it represents something very strong, very powerful in terms of law and order. Our country needs law and order. Alcatraz is, I would say the ultimate, right? Alcatraz, Sing Sing and Alcatraz, the movies, but uh it's right now a museum, believe it or not. A lot of people go there. It has the most violent criminals in the world. And nobody ever escaped.

One person almost got there, but they, as you know, the story, they found his clothing rather badly ripped up and uh it was a lot of shark bites, a lot of, a lot of problems. Nobody's ever escaped from Alcatraz and just represented something uh strong having to do with law and order. We need law and order in this country and so we're going to look at it, some of the people up here are going to be working very hard on that and uh We had a little conversation.

I think it's going to be very interesting. We'll see if we can bring it back in large form, and a lot, but I think it represents something right now it's a big hulk that's sitting there rusting and rotting, uh, very, uh, you look at it, it's sort of you saw that picture that was put out sort of amazing, but it, it sort of represents something that's both horrible and beautiful and strong and miserable we. It's got a lot of, it's got a lot of qualities that are interesting, and I think they, they make a point."

[Brett Bellmore]

I see that Trump's ban on transgenders in the military is back on. The Supreme court ended the injunction 6-3 for the duration of any appeals.

UNITED STATES, ET AL. V. SHILLING, COMMANDER, ET AL

[grb]

When Trump humiliates himself and his supporters with rambling incoherent gibberish, the strategy of those supporters is just ignore the evidence. They just pretend their brain-dead cult god never even spoke. It's how they cope. But others worldwide aren't so generous. All around the globe, people point & laugh because the U.S. president has an IQ that can be counted in a single pass on fingers and toes. Some gems from today's state visit by the new Canadian Prime Minister:

Trump: "I always liked Gavin. I have a good relationship with him. I just got him a lot of water. I sent in people to open up that water. We just got him a lot of water. If they would've had that water and done what I said to do, they wouldn't have had the fires in Los Angeles."

(note : this refers to Trump's bunglefest fiasco during the California fires when he wasted 2.2 billion gallons of water in a pointless useless stunt ( https://tinyurl.com/466898zz ).

Trump on China: "By not trading, we're losing nothing. So we're saving a trillion dollars. That's a lot."

(note : most elementary school children understand Economic Theory better than Trump)

Trump: "President Obama -- and if he wanted help I'd give him help because I'm a really good builder -- he's building his library in Chicago, and it's a disaster. And he said something to the effect of 'I only want DEI. I only want woke.' He wants woke people to build it. Well, he's got woke people ... he didn't use good, hard, tough, mean construction workers."

(note : after four-years of Trump2, the (by then) brutally damaged country will be desperate for a joke. Trump's own library will provide one in built form)

Trump to Carney: "You see the new and improved Oval Office. As it becomes more and more beautiful with love and 24 karat gold. That always helps too."

(note : case in point, there's Trump's new Oval Office - now pimped-out in high rap-star fashion with shiny gaudy bling.)

Trump: "Everyone says, 'When, when, when are you gonna sign deals?' We don't have to sign deals ... they have to sign deals with us. We don't care about their market ... they'll either say, 'Great,' and they'll start shopping, or they'll say, 'Not good.' That's okay. You don't have to shop."

(note : get the impression there's no plan to go along with no clue?)

[David Nieporent]

(note : most elementary school children understand Economic Theory better than Trump)

Yes; if you told a child, "No, you can't buy that toy you wanted with your allowance, but that's great because it means that you're not losing anything," the child would wonder why you were lying to him.

[Kazinski]

I guess we just got used rambling incoherent nonsense from presidents.

We have had a lot of it the past 8 years.

[ThePublius]

Hegseth trimming four stars from the service. During WWII we had 13 four star officers, and 4 five star admirals. Today there are a total of 38. Does that make sense? Bureaucracies become bloated over time, and it's time they were trimmed back. I only wish he'd cut more than 20%.

[David Nieporent]

What problem is this supposed to solve?