Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that the Trump administration is planning to transport a group of immigrants to Libya on a U.S. military plane. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/us/politics/trump-libya-migrants.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250507&instance_id=154032&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=197448&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

Why Lybia?

[Mr. Bumble]

Paywalled of course.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This isn't: https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/u-s-deportation-deals-with-angola-equatorial-guinea/

It's for illegal aliens from places like Venezuela which won't take their citizens back. It's better than my solution which would be to not let any Venezuelan into the US to attend a UN function until they agreed to accept their citizens back, as required under International law.

As to why Africa, the attitude is the further away from the US the better.

[Martinned]

until they agreed to accept their citizens back, as required under International law.

Which bit of international law, specifically? Art. 12(4) ICCPR says that "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country." But what you're talking about is a situation where the person in question presumably has no desire to enter their own country.

[Frank Drackman]

As the late great Robert Frost said, Home is the place when you have to go there, they have to take you in.

[CountmontyC]

They don't have to go home but they can't stay here.

[Martinned]

No one has an obligation to take them if they don't want to leave.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, we could set them adrift on the high seas with three days of water and a favorable breeze...

[Martinned]

You could, but that would be a crime.

[Mr. Bumble]

WTF?

[Martinned]

What part of that sentence confuses you?

[Mr. Bumble]

"...if they don't want to leave."

[Martinned]

You think people who went through great trouble to get themselves smuggled into the US want to leave?

[CountmontyC]

They have no legal right to stay in the USA. If their home country won't take them back I would suggest that they try and find a country that they are willing to go to that will take them or a country will be chosen for them. It might be Mexico or it might be Libya but it will not be the USA.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They do have a legal right to stay, if they have a legitimate asylum claim. Fleeing communism used to be a valid reason...

[CountmontyC]

Key word there is "legitimate " and once their asylum claim is denied then they either return to their own country or to a third country. They have no legal right to stay in the USA once ordered to depart. If their home nation refuses repatriation then they either find a country willing to take them or they will be deported to a nation that will accept them that is not their choice.

[Martinned]

And how do you suppose they do that? Pay someone to smuggle them into Mexico?

[CountmontyC]

Mexico here is $10,000 to accept these Venezuelan illegal aliens. If you don't take it maybe Colombia will.
Venezuelan illegal aliens should you return to the USA illegally after deportation we will charge you with felonies and lock you up in prison ( i would start establishing Sheriff Arpaio style prisons on the border to hold these people. Very cheap).

[HazelMeade]

Seriously, since we're breaking all the rules here, why not send a bunch of US marines to drop the venezuelans off on the beach anywhere in Venezuela and then just sail away?
Are they going to bomb a bunch of Venezuelans to prevent them from being returned?
Why is imprisoning them in Lybia a superior solution to violating Venezuelan territorial sovereinty for a couple of hours?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People who want to avoid paywalls can use archived articles.

https://archive.ph/d4oAW

The decision to send deportees to Libya was striking. The country is racked with conflict, and human rights groups have called conditions in its network of migrant detention centers “horrific” and “deplorable.”

The Libya operation falls in line with the Trump administration’s effort to not only deter migrants from trying to enter the country illegally but also to send a strong message to those in the country illegally that they can be deported to countries where they could face brutal conditions. Reuters earlier reported the possibility of a U.S. deportation flight to Libya.

Reports also list Rwanda as an option. Maybe, he should think about North Korea.

[Bob from Ohio]

People who want to avoid people complaining about paywalls can use the archived articles link in the first place.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If Trump doesn't want to comply with international asylum law, he should resile (the US) from the various conventions.

[Bob from Ohio]

Or he can just ignore them.

I did learn a new word "resile"

"recoil, retract. especially : to return to a prior position. resile from an agreement."

[Brett Bellmore]

How many of those conventions did we actually ratify?

[Kazinski]

Maybe they are Libyan.

The NYTimes doesn't say:
"The nationalities of the migrants were not immediately clear, but a flight to Libya carrying the deportees could leave as soon as Wednesday,"

But Libya is also a major transit hub for illegal immigrants going to Europe, maybe they wanted to go there, and Libya said they would take them.

[not guilty]

Yeah, right.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — That is not a case of, "The NYTimes doesn't say." That is a case of the NYTimes asked, and government officials would not answer the question.

[Martinned]

Oh yes, Libya is famously a paradise for refugees.

https://www.msf.org/libya-migrants-face-extreme-violence-and-exclusion-healthcare

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-migrants-libya-detention-centers-b2746147.html

[TaioF920]

Who cares? These people are not our fucking problem.

[Martinned]

I would be careful if I was you. Before you know it, it'll be you in one of those camps.

[Commenter_XY]

Why not? There is no legal requirement to keep them if their home country won't take them.

Whats not to like about Libya? Sun, sand, warm climate. Now I grant that you have to deal with the occasional revolution, or some rando terrorist sticking a gun in your face. But that isn't a big deal for an illegal alien gangbanger, is it?

[Martinned]

There is no legal requirement to keep them if their home country won't take them.

No, but there's a legal requirement to offer protection to refugees, and sending them to Lybia is the opposite of that.

[Commenter_XY]

Refugee, my ass. You mean illegal alien gangbanger.

[Martinned]

Until you give them due process you don't know which is which.

[Michael P]

Let Libya sort that out and provide refuge.

[Martinned]

Sure, who needs the rule of law anyway? I can see why you'd be so enthusiastic to set fire to it and flush the ashes down the toilet.

[TaioF920]

America is not morally obligated to commit national suicide in order to satisfy some abstract idea of the "rule of law."

[Martinned]

Ignoring the rule of law *is* committing national suicide.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, this is why "the Constitution is not a suicide pact!" is an argument that should have been instantly slapped down: Once you legitimize it, both sides can use it.

You want a commitment to the rule of law, you need a commitment to not pretending the law has somehow conveniently changed when you don't like it. Originalism even when you don't like original meaning.

Because two can play at living constitutionalism.

[TaioF920]

Brett understands. I would be more sympathetic to the rule of law screams had the left not been ignoring it for 60 years. The immigration disaster is largely because the rule of law, that is not enforcing the laws and agreeing to egregious settlements like Flores, was not followed. You don't get to create a problem by ignoring the rule of law then yelling when someone tries to fix that problem by ignoring the rule of law.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — American constitutionalism never presumes particular policy outcomes. It presumes instead as many as care to do it remain at liberty to play at what you term, "living constitutionalism."

Indeed, there can be no greater political liberty than capacity to make and remake constitutions by whatever means the polity can manage, and then to judge collectively at pleasure, guided on the basis of experience, what to do next. That is the originalist American constitutionalism the founders bequeathed.

It is yours only for so long as you and the other members of this polity can keep it, and keep it alive. On the whole, it has proved a success. Your impulse to fossilize it is ill-considered.

[Martinned]

A Republic, if you can keep it...

[Drewski]

Brett, of course, hates the rule of law as a concept. He frequently talks about "second-amendment remedies," "turning from the ballot box to the ammo box," and lynching judges from lampposts. When he talks about preserving rule of law, he means the opposite. He wants the Constitution to act as a suicide pact so his revolution fantasies can play out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you an AI? Because you're hallucinating there.

[bernard11]

Is it just possible that those who disagree with you about the meaning of the Constitution do so in good faith, and are not just
"pretending the law has somehow conveniently changed."

Are you truly incapable of understanding that there can be honest disagreement, that the Bellmore Constitution is not the last word?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, there's a range of legitimate disagreement. The problem is, there is also pulling it out of your ass. BOTH exist and need to be recognized.

When your 'interpretation' renders every word in the commerce clause after 'to regulate' a dead letter, for instance, or conveniently reads the content of a recently defeated constitutional amendment into a long ago ratified one, I think you're into the latter territory.

[David Nieporent]

Brett, of course, hates the rule of law as a concept. He frequently talks about "second-amendment remedies," "turning from the ballot box to the ammo box," and lynching judges from lampposts. When he talks about preserving rule of law, he means the opposite. He wants the Constitution to act as a suicide pact so his revolution fantasies can play out.

Brett has many (many) problems and foibles, but you seem to be confusing him with Dr. Ed here.

[Sarcastr0]

He did talk about lynching a judge once, but he's got a way to go before he's at Dr. Ed's level.

[bernard11]

When your 'interpretation' renders every word in the commerce clause after 'to regulate' a dead letter,

I know you have an intense dislike for Wickard, (I don't know what the other case you mention is), but I happen to think it was rightly decided, not because I pulled something out of my ass but because, given the nature of cartels (they leak), Filburn's use of the wheat needed to be regulated in order to accomplish the regulation of interstate commerce the government was undertaking.

Now, I happen to also think your objection is made in good faith, and is not just based on a desire to turn back the clock. I also understand your argument, but I think the situation is more complex than you do.

Of course I'm hardly innocent here. There are decisions ( as well as Constitutional arguments) I think were pulled out of someone's ass, as well as some I don't like but accept as reached honestly.

My impression is that you consider any you disagree with not only wrong, but reached for some nefarious purpose. No?

[Drewski]

Brett denies it, but here's the receipt for his comment saying the North Carolina Supreme Court should be hung from the lampposts for a decision he dislikes: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/19/north-carolina-state-supreme-court-makes-a-bold-move/?comments=true#comments

I'm not hunting down a source on Brett saying "soap box, ballot box, ammo box" or "second amendment remedy" because he says these things pretty frequently. Just remember that for all his sanctimony, he's a psychopath who fantasizes constantly about violence. When he talks about rule of law, it's only when he wants to see someone hurt in its name.

[TaioF920]

And the level of due process your people would require would overwhelm any system. So basically, what you are advocating for is de facto open borders.

[Martinned]

Your xenophobia is your problem, not anyone else's.

[not guilty]

"And the level of due process your people would require would overwhelm any system. So basically, what you are advocating for is de facto open borders."

SCOTUS has said, in the context of persons sought to be deported under the Alien Enemies Act, that:

“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.

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

What is overwhelming about that? "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, 333 (1976). Why is the Trump administration scared shitless of having to actually offer evidence in relation to those whom it seeks to deport?

[Joe_dallas]

Let them apply for refugee status from Lydia or wherever

[Martinned]

Lydia hasn't been an independent state since 546 BC. It's also in an entirely different continent than the one where Trump is proposing to send these people.

[Joe_dallas]

martin is Pulling a DN - finds a typo

yet can address the substance

[Martinned]

I've addressed the substance plenty, but it's like talking to a wall. You can't make a man hear who is committed to handing his country over to a tinpot dictator.

[Joe_dallas]

you havent grasped that the vast majority of refugee claims are bogus false claims

As they say on Star Trek - Reality for the woke is the final frontier

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 2 hours ago
You think people who went through great trouble to get themselves smuggled into the US want to leave?

two hours ago martinned basically admitted claims of refugee doesnt make the person a refugee.

[David Nieporent]

you havent grasped that the vast majority of refugee claims are bogus false claims

Another subject on which bookkeeper_joe is an expert!

[bernard11]

Lydia

[Zarniwoop]

heh, I'm glad I checked your link before posting the exact same one.

Been a Marx Bros fanboi since I was ~10, and there were triple features at some place near Bahstahn Common (I wish I knew what theater - on Tremont St? I don't think it was the Brattle - but it's been a long while)

[Bob from Ohio]

"Until you give them due process you don't know which is which."

An ICE determination is all the "process" they are "due".

[Zarniwoop]

You'd probably think people get "all the 'process' they are 'due'" when ordered to kneel at the edge of an open pit grave.

It's sad there are so many folks who so very desperately aspire to be "good little GermansAmericans" here.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Nine Justices and the Immigration and Naturalization Act all disagree. But why would Trump have to abide by any of that?

[Joe_dallas]

Claiming to be a refugee doesn’t make them refugees

[Brett Bellmore]

As I like to say: Your house burns down and you walk over to the Motel 6, you're a refugee. You continue walking to the Comfort Inn, you're just some guy looking for a hotel room.

Almost everybody showing up in the US claiming to be a refugee, or demanding asylum, passed through some safe 3rd country along the way, and even if they have a legit claim to persecution, they're pursuing the claim in the wrong place.

Like Garcia; He claims he was subject to persecution in El Salvador. OK, then, but you came to the US from Guatemala, so why should we care?

[Martinned]

He claims he was subject to persecution in El Salvador. OK, then, but you came to the US from Guatemala, so why should we care?

Because he is in the US. Or at least he was until he was kidnapped by the government.

[TaioF920]

He's not our fucking problem.

[Martinned]

It will be when it's you that's kidnapped off the street.

[Brett Bellmore]

Me, I'm not saying we did things the right way in his case. Just that, if we had, he'd still have been deported, and might very well have landed in exactly the same situation.

Because there's absolutely no question he wasn't here legally, and his case for not being deported to his home country looks like it might have become moot if it had been reviewed.

[not guilty]

"Because there's absolutely no question he wasn't here legally, and his case for not being deported to his home country looks like it might have become moot if it had been reviewed."
Why, then, are Trump and his underlings fighting so hard to avoid bringing Abrego Garcia back and "ensur[ing] that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador"? It's not like a unanimous Supreme Court hasn't ordered the administration to facilitate that.

Why has President Trump chosen this as the hill to die on? It makes no sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, how many times do I have to complain that he screwed up, and then got stubborn when it was exposed, before you accept that I mean it?

He should have manned up about it, brought Garcia back, and either deported his ass to a country for which there was no withholding order, or gotten the order removed as moot. But given Garcia the process he was due, which should by all rights have resulted in the same outcome eventually anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you are fighting tooth and nail to make sure Trump and his administration do not need to do anything at all to address this screw up.

So your complaint that people are not taking admission of Trump's fault seriously is stupid. No you don't get a cookie when you're doing a ton of work to rob it of any heat.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He should have manned up about it, brought Garcia back"

And face 200 more judges issuing orders to get the others back? That is not "manning up", its a complete surrender.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why has President Trump chosen this as the hill to die on? It makes no sense."

Because of the precedent it would set. Bring him back you concede you can get everyone back so you get 200 orders to do so.

[Zarniwoop]

"Why has President Trump chosen this as the hill to die on? It makes no sense."

Because of the precedent it would set. Bring him back you concede you can get everyone back so you get 200 orders to do so.

As far as I know, only Garcia had a "don't deport to El Salvador" judicial order that the Administration admits it violated.

If you want to concede that Trump deported another 200 people in violation of court orders, I'd love to hear about it.

But "precedent" (as commonly understood by people with more than two brain cells; this may or may not be you) has a "same case/situation" component. If none of the other deportees were subject to a "don't deport to El Salvador" judicial order ... then there just are not 200 additional people.

There's just not. This isn't rocket surgery. Stop being so deliberately stupid.

[not guilty]

Bob, if President Trump wanted to avoid a precedent, he should not have appealed Judge Xinis's order. District Court opinions have no precedential value.

Trump now has a 9-0 SCOTUS decision staring him in the face. Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 604 U. S. ____ (2025). That decision, read in pari materia with the decision three days earlier in Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U. S. ____ (2025), are binding precedents requiring that the federal government must afford due process to aliens before deporting them, and the failure to do so is reviewable by federal courts.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of vertical stare decisis, Bob?

[jb]

This is why the safe third country concept exists.

But Libya is for sure not a safe third country. Guatemala may not be either, for that matter. Mexico probably could be, and last time around Trump was trying to negotiate with them to get to that point. But absent that agreement, it doesn't make it okay to dump people entering from Mexico in random unsafe places.

Probably worth noting that the Lankford bill that Trump killed last year would have made a lot of improvements to the asylum process so that many of the people who are spuriously claiming refugee status wouldn't be able to enter or stay in the country until an initial (and more robust) determination of their claim had been adjudicated. Who knows how this would work in practice, but it seemed like a promising approach to balancing the interests here.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would also have legitimized higher levels of illegal immigration than we'd ever seen before Biden, while the additional authority it gave to combat illegal immigration if the President felt like doing it would evaporate over the course of several years.

Just another bait for suckers bill, that died as soon as anybody besides the sponsors had a chance to read it.

[jb]

This is why immigration reform in the US is basically impossible. Every attempt to get to some sort of compromise gets spun into oblivion by people who are just anti-immigration period. So incremental reforms aren't possible and we are left with a system that can't adapt to changes other than through executive action one way or the other.

(That maybe describes the general problem with Congress on many topics, but it seems particularly acute on immigration. I imagine entitlement reform is equally tricky, so people have mostly given up trying.)

[Life of Brian]

Every attempt to get to some sort of compromise

Some things aren't conducive to compromise by their very nature. The proverbial wolves and sheep can't "compromise" on what's for dinner -- either at least some of the sheep are eaten, or none are.

Here too it seems like a weird choice when discussing levels of illegal immigration, particularly when the left generally ties themselves in pretzel knots wailing that it's just a hard problem nobody can really control rather than bellying up to the bar and saying they actually want more of it. And if they actually do want more, the obvious and correct solution is to increase the (already "permeable") caps on legal immigration rather than creating de facto quotas of illegals, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Some things aren't conducive to compromise by their very nature.
Immigration policy has a ton of dimensions and space to give ant take. It is not part of that set.

You and Brett and the 'can't trust any Dems' are the problem.

[Life of Brian]

"Let's 'compromise' on letting in X illegals a day" isn't "a ton of dimensions and space" or whatever other handwavy language you may try to come back and substitute. It's a determinate metric that no good-faith actor would propose to be greater than zero, since if they really do want more heads in the door there are legal mechanisms in place for doing that as I clearly said and you opted to just dance around.

[Sarcastr0]

Making up your own version of what the other side wants so you can get mad at it...what a good faith move.

[Life of Brian]

A set per-day threshold of illegal entries before any corrective action whatsoever would be taken is exactly what was in the vaunted "compromise bill," and one of the major reasons it got absolutely zero support from anyone with functioning gray matter. Denying it just makes you look either hyperpartisan or hyperignorant.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you talking about The Border Emergency Authority threshold?

Twice now, you've been cagey about what parts of that bill you're even referring to.
Intentional failure to communicate clearly. A sign of bad faith.

[David Nieporent]

A set per-day threshold of illegal entries before any corrective action whatsoever would be taken is exactly what was in the vaunted "compromise bill,"

Lying once again. The bill did not set any floor below which no action would be taken. It said a ceiling above which certain harsh action must be taken.

[Life of Brian]

Y'all are both really sad in your own special way: Sarc, for pretending not to know anything about the bill at all, and David, for obtusely pointing to a different provision right next to the one we've been discussing in this thread, pretending this one doesn't exist:

(3) ACTIVATIONS OF AUTHORITY.—

“(A) DISCRETIONARY ACTIVATION.—The Secretary may activate the border emergency authority if, during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 4,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day.

I'll leave it to you big brains to explain to the class what exactly the Secretary is allowed to do if the 7-day average is 3,999 aliens per day (about 1.45 million per year).

[David Nieporent]

I'll leave it to you big brains to explain to the class what exactly the Secretary is allowed to do if the 7-day average is 3,999 aliens per day (about 1.45 million per year).

Ooh! Call on me, teacher! I know the answer!

If the 7-day average is 3,999 aliens per day, the Secretary is allowed to catch, seize, and deport all of them who aren't eligible to be here!

[Sarcastr0]

The border emergency authority is an *increase* from the current authority as exists now. It includes the ability to turn away those claiming refugee status with no hearing, not currently allowed under the INA.

Below that, the authority is as it exists now.

Do you mix up ceilings and floors in real life? Seems hazardous!

DMN also said this, but you didn't seem to get it so I'm repeating it.

[Life of Brian]

If the 7-day average is 3,999 aliens per day, the Secretary is allowed to catch, seize, and deport all of them who aren't eligible to be here!

Aw, how cute. What twisted meaning could you possibly be giving to "aren't eligible" to be able to say that with a straight face? Oh, right -- as even Sarc was honest enough to admit (talk about upside-down day!), just the handful dumb enough not to internalize the endless prompts along their journey just to mumble "I'm scared, yo" to the border agent. That's not a meaningful limitation and you know it full well.

[Life of Brian]

It includes the ability [starting at a set level] to [do X].

Below that [set level], the authority is as it exists now [and thus you can't do X].

Yes, Virginia, that's how floors work!

[David Nieporent]

mumble "I'm scared, yo" to the border agent. That's not a meaningful limitation and you know it full well.

I know full well that you don't know what a credible fear interview is or how it works.

[Life of Brian]

Nieporentese for "yup, absolutely correct, but I can't possibly admit that so check out this handful of distractive confetti!"

[David Nieporent]

QED.

[Life of Brian]

And he closes with a slightly more sophisticated rendition of "yo momma." I guess that's all that's left when you try to defend the indefensible.

[Brett Bellmore]

Immigration reform in the US is basically impossible because compromise relies on both sides of the table expecting the terms of the deal to be honored. And there is no basis for that expectation in the case of immigration, has not been for decades.

Illegal immigration is already illegal. Presidents are already supposed to be securing the border. So the status quo that opponents of illegal immigration wanted to change was already a consequence of administrations deliberately deciding to not enforce the law.

And don't even start on pretending that Biden was honestly trying to stop illegal immigration. Don't even try going there.

Until it's established that existing law has to be enforced, there's hardly any point in changing it, and no point AT ALL in making concessions (That will be enforced!) to gain those changes. Because the parts of the deal that the opponents of illegal immigration LIKE will be violated!

[Sarcastr0]

You have never bothered to learn the INA and how it works, preferring a BrettLaw that envisions perfect, immediate implementation of all things.

'I will make no concessions because I have my own facts that say I'm right and you're in bad faith.' is you being part of the problem. You may blame the Democrats, but this is all you and your vibes on what immigration law *should* look like. And, surprise, it's reductive and simplistic.

Compromise sure as shit relies on people like you not being in the room.

[Brett Bellmore]

The failure of the Reagan amnesty deal to be honored on both sides killed all prospects for compromise on this issue.

I'll say it again: You want compromise, you want deal making, you have to be prepared to honor deals. You have to have a reputation as honoring deals. Once you have earned the contrary reputation, all possibility of compromise is dead.

No sane person expects immigration compromises to be honored. You know that as well as anyone, even if you do want to bait Republicans into deals your side can break.

And this wasn't even much of a compromise: In the event of higher illegal immigration numbers than we had ever seen before Biden took office, the President got extra powers he could exercise if he wanted, and the powers expired within a few years.

So if there had been a second Biden administration, even on the express terms of the bill he wouldn't have to do squat, and by the time a Republican replaced him all the emergency powers would be gone.

[David Nieporent]

Until it's established that existing law has to be enforced, there's hardly any point in changing it, and no point AT ALL in making concessions (That will be enforced!) to gain those changes. Because the parts of the deal that the opponents of illegal immigration LIKE will be violated!

As you've been told repeatedly, there aren't sufficient resources to enforce existing law. The Lankford bill would've increased those resources.

[David Nieporent]

And this wasn't even much of a compromise: In the event of higher illegal immigration numbers than we had ever seen before Biden took office, the President got extra powers he could exercise if he wanted, and the powers expired within a few years.

Actually, the bill required certain extraordinary steps on immigration to be taken if illegal immigration levels reached a certain threshold.

[Sarcastr0]

You're pissed off at something from 40 years ago. That grudge-holding is center mass you being the problem in the room. I don't care how you rationalize it; righteousness is the death of compromise.

And you are still making up your own lay of the land in immigration law. Because you don't care about the law.

Again, not the kind of person to discuss policy.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The Lankford bill would've increased those resources."

And as I pointed out to you, that didn't mean they'd get USED, as Biden wasn't even using the resources he had.

With the same resources, Trump was enormously more effective at stopping illegal immigration, and why?

Because he actually was trying to.

Southern border encounters, October 19 - Sept 22 Trump had the border under control, Biden takes office, and the moment Biden is in control, numbers skyrocket to higher than the worst month of the Trump administration, and STAY there for years.

Southern border encounters, October 22 - March 25 Biden didn't even make a semi-plausible effort to bring those numbers down until the 2024 election was staring him in the face, and illegal immigration was hurting him badly. But Trump takes office again, and they're a tiny fraction of any number while Biden was President.

There are plenty of resources to keep the border closed to illegal immigration, if a President wants to. What are lacking are resources to clear out the accumulated illegals.

But so long as the next Democratic President is free to throw the border open again like Biden did, no amount of deportation resources would be enough to keep up with the inflow.

I'll say it again: Establish that the law will be enforced even if you don't like it, and there's a basis for compromise. So long as you reserve the right to not enforce laws you don't like, there can't be any compromise.

[David Nieporent]

The failure of the Reagan amnesty deal to be honored on both sides

This is just part of the anti-immigration catechism. It has no substantive content to it. (Note that there was no Reagan amnesty "deal" in the Trumpian sense of lots of hot air that never amounts to anything; there was an actual law that was passed. Surely you're not claiming that those involved agreed the bill would say "A, B, C, D, and E," but then before it was voted on someone used whiteout on the paper and so the actual bill only said, "A, B, C, and E." So what are you claiming "wasn't honored"?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Actually, the bill required certain extraordinary steps on immigration to be taken if illegal immigration levels reached a certain threshold."

And allowed Presidents to waive the requirement, which could also be avoided by the simple expedient of giving the Border patrol a day off to avoid hitting the threshold. Which threshold was set absurdly high in the first place, higher than was hit at any time while Trump was President.

So cut the crap, the emergency powers would not, in fact, have ended up being used, if Biden had been reelected, and would have completely expired before the next President took office.

[bernard11]

You want compromise, you want deal making, you have to be prepared to honor deals. You have to have a reputation as honoring deals. Once you have earned the contrary reputation, all possibility of compromise is dead.

So you're saying that Donald Trump can never make a deal?

[Sarcastr0]

legitimized higher levels of illegal immigration

What does this mean?

[Joe_dallas]

Brett explained it to you

it was a bait and switch bill - similar to the bait and switch in the inflation reduction act.

[Brett Bellmore]

Since the failed Reagan amnesty deal, 'bipartisan' immigration deals have always been bait and switch, cooked up by a small minority of Republican members who actually agree with the Democrats on immigration.

And when the details emerge, they always fall apart, because they always have features that are intolerable to the great majority of Republicans. That's why they always negotiate the deals secretly, and then try to rush a vote before the details can get out.

[David Nieporent]

It would also have legitimized higher levels of illegal immigration than we'd ever seen before Biden,

It would, in fact, not have legitimized any levels of illegal immigration.

[Brett Bellmore]

Under the Lankford bill, the DHS gets emergency authority it can optionally exercise if 4,000 encounters per day happen in a week. That's a rate of 1.46M encounters per year.

Exercise nominally ceases to be optional at 5,000 per day sustained a week, or if a single day total exceeds 8,500.

BUT, encounters don't count unless the aliens are from "contiguous countries", which is to say, Mexico and Canada. So aliens from other countries don't count towards the threshold.

Second, regardless of the rate of encounters, the authority can't be activated more than 270 days in the first year, 225 days in the second year, or 180 days in the third year. In the fourth year, the authority vanishes.

And activation can be waived regardless of hitting the threshold, so the whole authority thing would have done nothing while Biden was President, even if we ignore all the other ways it can be circumvented, such as telling the border patrol to stand down if the numbers approach the threshold.

So, as you can see, the bill only activates the powers if illegal immigration is worse than at any point during the first Trump administration, which is what I mean by legitimizing lower numbers, they're not treated as an emergency. And doesn't really mean anything unless a President WANTS to use them, anyway.

The bill was designed to make all the concessions to Republicans go away before the 2nd Biden administration was over, so that a Republican President could never make use of them.

[Joe_dallas]

DN - distort and deflect

Brett's discussion of the bill destroys your distortion.

[Commenter_XY]

Define: safe. America isn't safe, either (in cities).

Why is America safe, but Guatemala or Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan not safe?

[Martinned]

America isn't safe, either (in cities).

Ain't that the truth...

[Sarcastr0]

No, it’s not the truth.

The far right are just insular and racist and bad at statistics.

It’s so common there is no shortage of memes.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgB5vNSXgAcCxN1.jpg

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would you prefer they be dumped in 50 fathom of water?

The illegal alien working under the table is STEALING FROM ME and the middle will not hold indefinitely.

[David Nieporent]

The illegal alien working under the table is STEALING FROM ME

I mean, I guess on the theory that as a janitor you're supposed to sweeping beneath that table, perhaps.

Otherwise, NO HE ISN'T.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I am sympathetic to that argument, but it is not the law.

[Joe_dallas]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-department-investigating-2022-abrego-garcia-traffic-stop/story?id=121492776

Looks like DN prior posts that the claim that THP's discussion of Garcia's human smuggling was just gossip is another of his typical distortions and deflections. Always distorting and deflection while trying to dance around the facts

[David Nieporent]

Looks like DN prior posts that the claim that THP's discussion of Garcia's human smuggling was just gossip is another of his typical distortions and deflections.

It was, and still is, just gossip. A couple of cops chatting amongst themselves and saying, "Hey, it could be trafficking" isn't actual evidence of diddlysquat.

The problem, bookkeeper_joe, is that you're just not intellectually equipped to participate in these discussions, so you can only repeat things like "distortions and deflections" over and over without actually saying anything substantive ever.

[Joe_dallas]

DN has become a serial liar
Even after a link has been provided refuting his claim, he doubles down on his lies

[David Nieporent]

The link supports what I said. Remember when you claimed that KBJ had misrepresented the holding of a case, except that she had never even discussed the holding of that case? It's like that. You hope — presumably from life experience — that people won't check out what you say, so you feel free to lie about it.

[Martinned]

No, it makes you an asylum seeker until your case has been properly adjudicated.

[Joe_dallas]

Surprising that it needs repeating - but in Martin 's case it does

Claiming to be a refugee doesnt make the person a refugee. aka - false claim, gaming the system, etc

[Martinned]

No, claiming to be a refugee makes you an asylum seeker until your case has been properly adjudicated.

[Joe_dallas]

Martin needs remedial education.

Claiming to be a refugee doesnt make the person a refugee

[Martinned]

Jesus Christ! Is reading that hard for you???

[Joe_dallas]

Is understanding that claiming to be a refugee doesnt make the person a refugee

Is comprehension that hard for you???
Is a grasp of reality that hard for you???

[David Nieporent]

I can confirm that reading is indeed that hard for him.

[Joe_dallas]

https://cis.org/Oped/Most-illegal-immigrants-do-not-qualify-US-asylum

We can all confirm - DN doesnt do his homework

[David Nieporent]

Is understanding that claiming to be a refugee doesnt make the person a refugee

Is comprehension that hard for you???

I'll put it into small words: Martinned did not say that claiming to be a refugee made the person a refugee. Martinned said that claiming to be a refugee made the person an asylum seeker.
​
​​
seek·er
/ˈsēkər/
noun
a person who is attempting to find or obtain something.
"a tireless seeker of justice"

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Is understanding that claiming to be a refugee doesnt make the person a refugee

Is comprehension that hard for you???

I'll put it into small words: Martinned did not say that claiming to be a refugee made the person a refugee. Martinned said that claiming to be a refugee made the person an asylum seeker.

Dishonest DN strikes again

The vast majority of cases Claiming to be a refugee only makes the person an asylm seeking under false pretense. Of course both you and martin distort and deflect the issue

[David Nieporent]

The vast majority of cases Claiming to be a refugee only makes the person an asylm seeking under false pretense. Of course both you and martin distort and deflect the issue

1) A person seeking asylum under false pretenses is still a person seeking asylum.

2) You're full of shit. You wouldn't know a legitimate claim from an ice cream sandwich. You have neither the intelligence nor the knowledge base to make such a claim.

[Joe_dallas]

DN again displays his anger when his deception is exposed

A requirement of being an asylum seeking is being a refugee.

Claiming to be a refugee doesnt make the person a refugee.

Honesty is obviously not the forte of the woke

[David Nieporent]

A requirement of being an asylum seeking is being a refugee.

No. That is incoherent gibberish. It's equivalent to saying that a requirement of being a criminal defendant is being a criminal. The only requirement of being an asylum seeker is seeking asylum. Whether one is a refugee is what the asylum seeking process is meant to determine!

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 51 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
A requirement of being an asylum seeking is being a refugee.

No. That is incoherent gibberish.

DN - Now your are looking super stupid.
A person seeking asylum has to meet certain statutory requirements, one of which is being a refugee as defined by statute.

Just a continuation of DN's woke dishonesty

[David Nieporent]

A person seeking asylum has to meet certain statutory requirements, one of which is being a refugee as defined by statute.

There are no statutory requirements to seek asylum. There are, of course, statutory requirements to be granted asylum.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, though "purported refugee" might be more to the point, since most "asylum seekers" have their applications rejected when they're finally adjudicated.

It's been reduced to 'magic words' that buy you years longer in the country you actually have no legal claim to being in.

I think the easiest way to streamline things would be to require that asylum claims be made under oath, and then prosecute any perjury if they're rejected. But something more than just being kicked back out on the line.

[TaioF920]

And meanwhile, they produce a "citizen" child on our soil, who is then entitled to all of our financial support.

It's a ripoff.

[Martinned]

Feel free to abolish birthright citizenship. The Constitution is quite clear about the procedure for doing that.

[TaioF920]

We don't need to. We just need to ensure these people aren't here for a long enough period to give birth on U.S. soil in the first place.

But you're basically showing how the left's arguments here are steeped in bad faith.

[David Nieporent]

I think the easiest way to streamline things would be to require that asylum claims be made under oath,

Um, they are. What are you talking about? (Everything one says to the federal government is made under penalty of perjury or a legal equivalent, like 18 U.S.C. § 1001.)

and then prosecute any perjury if they're rejected.

A claim being rejected does not equate to perjury. Setting aside the difficulty of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an asylum seeker lied about fear of persecution, and the resources it would take, I'm not really clear that putting fleeing people up in prison here would really be much of a disincentive anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, again, most asylum claims, when adjudicated, end up being meritless. It's just magic words illegal immigrants are coached to say when caught, to put off deportation. So it's mostly NOT fleeing people, just economic immigrants.

Like Garcia; 'Fleeing El Salvador', but he didn't come here from El Salvador, he came here from Guatemala.

[Sarcastr0]

'Mostly' is some good vibes. Probably even true, though I'd hold out for the facts on it myself. But it also doesn't really get you to the point where you can ignore process.

[TaioF920]

You insist that someone be given the full suite of due process protections for claiming asylum, even when 98% of them are bogus. Then, once they've been here for several years awaiting that determination, you'll say it's "cruel" and "heartless" to deport them now, especially given that they have "citizen" children.

Do you not see how this is clear bad faith?

[Glaucomatose]

Asylum grant rates are generally somewhere between a third and half of applicants.

https://tracreports.org/reports/751/

And so what? Over 90% of federal criminal defendants get convicted; should we throw out due process for them, too? If so, can we make sure that's retroactive to last year so that it applies to Donald Trump?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not proposing throwing out due process, though. I'm merely saying that the amount of process actually due, once you've established that somebody isn't here legally, is pretty minimal.

[Sarcastr0]

once you've established that somebody isn't here legally, is pretty minimal.

That sure sound like you're throwing out due process with respect to refugee status determination for a wide swath of people.

[Brett Bellmore]

If by "wide swath of people" you mean "people who passed through any country on the way here that they are not seeking refuge from", yeah, guilty as charged. You hit the first safe country, you're a refugee. At the second, you're just a migrant.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"First safe country" is not the law.

[Zarniwoop]

"First safe country" is not the law.

The irony is that is could be, if Trump was a remotely decent politician who could work with Congress. Want to change immigration law? Actually frackin' change it, by acutally leadership. Make some deals. We're told Trump is the expert at deals.

So why can't Trump do the thing he claims to be "the best" at?

Does he not care? Or is he a self-promoting liar?

[Martinned]

@Zarniwoop: For the record, "first safe country" is not the law because of Congress, but because of the Refugee Convention.

https://www.unhcr.org/media/1951-refugee-convention-and-1967-protocol-relating-status-refugees

[Speaking for normal people]

If you are concerned about way stations of illegals headed ultimately to Europe do pay attention to Georgia Meloni who seems to prove that the terrible European situation is almost all due to : FRANCE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-C8ogD6E8c

IT seems Reason ignores all these drug and illegals stories that don't come down on Trump's head.

[Frank Drackman]

Those PLO terrotists of the early 70’s were always Hijacking planes to Libya

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I think they were guerrilla commandos and not “terrorists”.

[Frank Drackman]

Yasser Arafat was rather Simian

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Not every Islamofascist is a terrorist…was Francis Marion a terrorist?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Hard to believe in 2000 Rubio was at the house where Elian Gonzalez was being held against court orders and he sided with the family that refused to follow court orders and return him to his father in Cuba!?! Now the GOP will ship illegals to any country and they don’t care about asylum seekers or exiles or anything but a secure border.

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

No one cares what happened 170 years ago, Grandpa.

[Riva]

Better question is what makes him think he can do that without authorization from his co-commander in chiefs in the judiciary? Who does he think he is? Has anyone even looked at the Constitution? It plainly says....oh wait a sec... my bad, forget it.

[Kazinski]

Bessent testified in front of the Appropriations committee today and he said that last year about 1/3 the payments Treasury made.could not be traced back.to an appropriation.

They've changed the system now so payments without an appropriation reference will be kicked out of the system and not paid.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is anyone surprised?

[Martinned]

That definitely sounds like a great moment to send some 20-something blowhards in to start deleting things willy-nilly.

[Michael P]

That policy seems well-justified considering things like https://www.dailywire.com/news/foreign-aid-official-who-resisted-doge-took-secret-payments-after-steering-africa-money-to-friend .

[jb]

Seems like a different problem? Properly appropriated funds can still be distributed through sketchy no bid contracts.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t believe him.

I believe some database at the treasury level may have bad compliance. Maybe…the administration isn’t above just whole cloth lying.

But at the agency level the financial allocation process doesn’t allow obligation without a program element. Which is actually more granular than appropriation lines in the appropriations law as Congress lays them out.

So ‘could not be traced’ is bullshit at best and may even be a zealot lying.

[Michael P]

At the agency level, issuing a contract for IT services but labeling it as a contract for transportation and travel isn't supposed to happen either -- but it did in the case I linked above. Making a $2M transfer isn't supposed to happen based on just one official's decision, but it did.

Have you ever considered not covering up for corrupt practices by leftists, denialist?

[Sarcastr0]

The OP didn't say 1/3 the payments Treasury made lied about their appropriation. The admin is claiming they couldn't be traced to one at all.

We can talk about the scope and policy failures of fraudulent reporting elsewhere if you want. I would just note that cutting a ton of staff from the federal government certainly won't help that issue!

Here though? Lets stay on topic.

[Michael P]

Shorter Gaslight0: We should continue to facilitate waste, fraud and abuse by not recording information about why money is taken from the Treasury.

[Martinned]

You think that that's what Trump and Musk are trying to do??? Could you be any more naive?

[Michael P]

Every time I think you could not be more tedious or vacuous, you plumb new depths of inanity.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what do you think they are trying to do?

[Martinned]

Putting as much money in their own pockets as possible. These guys are orders of magnitude more corrupt than anyone who's been in charge of the US in the last century or more.

[Mr. Bumble]

So the richest man in the world and the richest President in US history are just two money grubbing Scrooge McDucks trying only to increase their wealth?
Tell it to the Marines.

[Martinned]

So the richest man in the world and the richest President in US history are just two money grubbing Scrooge McDucks trying only to increase their wealth?

Yes. What do you think $Trump is? Grifting is literally the only thing Trump has done in his adult life. And do you think it's a coincidence that DOGE are consistently particularly interested in government departments that either fund Musk businesses or in some sense compete with them?

[Michael P]

10% for the big guy!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

10% of what?

[Martinned]

10% of all government procurement?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/us/politics/trump-tesla-musk-cybertruck.html

[Sarcastr0]

Say the thing I dispute is true and I must love it.

Grade school level nonsense.

[Michael P]

You act awfully invested in making sure there is no way to balance the books between Congressional appropriations and Treasury withdrawals. That and throwing in red herrings like the number of corrupt functionaries drawing a paycheck in DC.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the third time I'm telling you that it is flat untrue that treasury withdrawals cannot be tied to appropriations.

Not sure why you reversed the order there, either.

the number of corrupt functionaries drawing a paycheck in DC.

I do think fraud should be better policed - mostly in Medicare and the like, since that's where the money is. There's a ton of GAO reports the admin and you are ignoring.
Of course they all take money and people, and that's not going to happen.

So the real question could be why do YOU support so much fraud?

[Brett Bellmore]

"They can't be violating procedure! That would be contrary to procedure!"

[Sarcastr0]

1. "I do think fraud should be better policed" is the opposite of your strawman.

2. If you are making a broader charge, your usual utter lack of evidence is cropping up yet again.

[Michael P]

Your suggestion for policing fraud better was hiring more bureaucrats, not improving procedures to make fraud easier to detect.

[Martinned]

Detecting fraud sure doesn't become any easier if you fire all the people whose job it is to detect fraud.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-doge-cuts-layoffs-31-percent-auditors-tax-revenue-impact/

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on what they thought their job was, I suppose.

[Sarcastr0]

Here's the GAO report I was thinking about:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105833

Your suggestion for policing fraud better was hiring more bureaucrats

Yeah, because I'm serious about fraud prevention. You're just serious about yelling on the Internet, so the baseline fact of reality where fraud detection and enforcement requires manpower is not something you worry about.

I should haul out that GAO report more - it does a great job showing who is serious and who is just a wanker.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 1 hour ago
"Yeah, because I'm serious about fraud prevention."

that conflicts with most every one of your prior statements

[TaioF920]

Much of the money was funneled to universities, NGOs and other left-wing advocacy groups. No wonder he supports such spending.

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

>Have you ever considered not covering up for corrupt practices by leftists, denialist?

No he has not. He always defends his tribe and attacks the Other.
Being consistently partisan is one of the three things Sarcastr0 is known for.

[Kazinski]

Then you shouldn't have any complaint about the change.

Something is certainly happening to clean things up as evidenced by the 5% drop in Federal expenditures from the 4th quarter to the 1st qtr. It may even be a more of a change than that, since we know the Biden administration was trying to get money out the door to grant recipients as fast as they could in their last days in January.

[Riva]

Oh no. How will all those non-profit democrat NGOs get paid now?

[jb]

That seems like a reasonable check that they probably should have had in place for a long time (including, presumably, Trump v1).

But there's no way that 1/3 of the payments weren't actually appropriated. A quick glance of where the government is spending money vs. appropriations would probably give you a sense of how well aligned things are, and since most of the spending is in a few very big buckets it's impossible that that large a chunk of federal spending is not actually appropriated.

There's a difference between saying "right now we don't have good controls so we don't necessarily understand whether all the money we're spending on is properly appropriated or not" and "1/3 of the money the Treasury is spending is illegitimate". Not sure whether Bessent is trying to imply the latter, but at a minimum a bunch of people here seem too dumb to understand the difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

1/3 of the payments isn't the same as 1/3 of the money. It could be that this mostly happens with the smaller payments.

[jb]

If we go by number of payments the statement can't be true at all: the vast majority of payments has to be through direct transfers to individuals through programs like social security that are very obviously appropriated.

[A Japanese Student]

The "appropriation" in annual appropriations bill does not account for most of the federal spending. Many programs are funded from mandatory spending programs, and fee-collecting agencies can use collected fees usually without appropriation.

[Kazinski]

You are confused, even if appropriations are permanent, or multi year they have an appropriation reference, or they are illegal.

Appropriations clause Article 1 Section 9:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular
Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of
all public Money shall be published from time to time.

As for fee collecting agencies, Congress likely appropriates the money when they authorize the fee.

[David Nieporent]

The appropriations clause contains a substantive component — that the govt can only spend money as authorized — and a procedural component — that the govt must keep a record of receipts and expenditures. It does not contain GAAP-type requirements about how the expenditures need to be recorded.

[Kazinski]

I was answering AJS claim that "Many programs are funded from mandatory spending programs, and fee-collecting agencies can use collected fees usually without appropriation."

So I quoted the entire sentence on the subject. I think referencing the appropriation is good accounting process and helps insure the constitution isn't violated, but I agree with you that the constitution does not require a specific method of accounting for the expenditures.

He seemed to think only an annual appropriations bill was considered an appropriation.

[Sarcastr0]

So your arguing that Bessent is talking about mandatory spending, but not saying that?

That's pretty disingenuous of him, no? And of you to report that but not highlight that's what he meant.

And mandatory spending is famously 2/3 of the federal budget, so the number doesn't add up.

[Kazinski]

Whatever happened to your reading comprehension.

I was answering AJS, who seemed to be confused about what constitutes an appropiation.

Bessent was talking about number of payments not how many dollars. And made no reference to discretionary or mandatory, nor did I imput one.

[Kazinski]

Here is what Bessent actually said:

"Well...it's a bit mystifying why they weren't in place. And what we are seeing is that there was a very complacent upper level of management in many departments...across the entire government. What I can say at Treasury is that of the 1.5 billion payments...we send out every year, they are required to have something called a TAS — the Treasury Account Symbol. We discovered that more than one-third — one-third — of those payments did not have a TAS number. So, as the Appropriations Committee, you should be shocked by that because: How can a payment be tracked back to an appropriation? Only through the TAS number. So there was no accountability. So that is why the 450 organizations that sit above Treasury, where Treasury acts as the paymaster, are unable to pass an audit. "

So just to cross check the math on that, there are 7.2 million ssi recipients, and 52 million SS recipients, so call it 60m getting 12 checks a year so 720m checks annually that would definitely have appropriations codes. So that leaves another 800 million payments, 500 million of which would not have an attached appropriations code. Perhaps the approximately 75 million tax returns would not need an appropriation, but that still leaves 425 million payments.

[Sarcastr0]

So your argument is that it’s not a mystery. And so he’s lying about that, but not the numbers he’s providing.

I don’t think you are doing him any favors.

[Kazinski]

If you can't understand what Bessent said or what I said about it, maybe you can get an AI to dumb it down for you.

My argument is that there are at least 700 million payments direct payments to individuals which are mandatory spending, leaving another 800m, so its entirely possible that 500 million do not have an appropiations code, and that ~75 million tax refunds would not need an appropriation.

There is still a mystery of about 425 million, even if my guess about the tax returns is correct.

[Sarcastr0]

You're making a lot of assumptions based on Bessent's total lack of specifics.

To the point that his lack of specifics looks designed to create a false inference in the audience.

Just like Comer. No wonder you're such a fan.

[Malika the Maiz]

Witness that MAGAns are not just fine, but celebratory about the federal government wrongly and illegally using force to deport a person to another country. The wrongness and illegality don’t bother them a whit, what’s fun for them is thinking about how limited remedy’s might be.

Mark that these people at some time in their life pretended to be “libertarians.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dropping Venezuelans from B-52s flying at 52,000 feet above Venezuela, while effective, would be wrong. Likewise tossing the Venezuelan delegation into prison and giving Venezuela an "all or nothing" deal -- i.e. take all your illegal aliens as well, or we simply execute your UN delegation -- would also be wrong.

But dumping them on a foreign shore is not only OK but an accepted practice under International Law. And don't forget that we are offering them a free airline ticket home if they wish to self-deport.

As to Venezuela, I wouldn't have a problem considering their refusal to accept their invaders back as an act of war and nuking them.

[Malika the Maiz]

As to Venezuela, I wouldn't have a problem considering their refusal to accept their invaders back as an act of war and nuking them

Conservative populism, folks!

[Dr. Ed 2]

International Law, folks.

For example, the NATO treaty defines threatening a nation's "territorial integrity, political independence or security" as an act of war.

[Martinned]

What does that have to do with what you said?

[Speaking for normal people]

So?
was it that way before the treaty? Is it jus gentium?
And YOU are the one re-defining what is being doen as threatening.
Why isn't that in the quote by the way.

[David Nieporent]

For example, the NATO treaty defines threatening a nation's "territorial integrity, political independence or security" as an act of war.

Is that as true as everything else you say, Dr. Ed?

Yes, yes, it is.

The NATO treaty does not define threatening a nation's "territorial integrity, political independence or security" as an act of war.

[Martinned]

That shows how naive I still am. I didn't even bother to check.

For the convenience of others, this is where the language Ed quoted comes from:

Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Note the clear distinction between the events listed in article 4 and the "armed attack" that is the topic of article 5.

[Riva]

Not sure what you mean by "person"? Do you mean illegal alien gangbanger?

[shawn_dude]

I think this has been covered often and deeply since Trump v1.

The right wing of the Republican party has been slowly losing ground across the country since the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 60s. (at a minimum.) Disfavored groups are gaining unprecedented levels of equality while protestant Christianity is shrinking. They correctly (imho) associate this with our democracy. Their solution is to jettison democracy in favor of authoritarianism where they feel they can control the outcome better. See: Project 2025, which goes about setting the stage for a Hungarian-style dissolution of democratic society.

[Kazinski]

The right wing of the GOP is more dominant than it ever has been in the GOP. And the GOP has the House, Senate, and Supreme Court.

How does growing numbers of Asians,Blacks, and Hispanics voting GOP comport with your theses?

It certainly wasn't the right trying to censor social media, or push vaccine mandates to be able to work or even go out of the house, or tell us what kind of cars we can drive, or what kind of stoves to cook our food on.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Given Trump's cascade of EO abuse, the Roberts Court should not be handing Trump any EO wins, except in slam-dunk 9–0 cases. The win on trans people in the military thus shows a Court looking for an opportunity to look balanced, and keen to sane-wash Trump EO cases where possible. That is a bad sign for any who expect SCOTUS to thwart Trump's lunge for totalitarian power.

There is no point to pick-and-choose attempts to preserve Court legitimacy, while the entire docket is buried in cases of illegitimate Constitutional abuse. Immediate Court action to recognize that, and to thwart it frontally, is the only true path to Court legitimacy in the present circumstance.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Suppose we were talking about the Kennedy administration's 1963 ban on transgender service. Would it have been permissible for the Supreme Court to at least temporarily allow that policy?

Or is this a matter of who/whom?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nope. It's a matter of a particularly out-of-context, "whatabout."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"the Roberts Court should not be handing Trump any EO wins, except in slam-dunk 9–0 cases."

No wins for doing the same as Kennedy?

[Martinned]

Are you somehow under the impression that Kennedy was a good president?

[Michael P]

The US left is under that impression. I can understand that you international lefties don't like how he handled commies.

[Martinned]

You mean by letting them into the White House? I'm not a leftie, so I'm not sure what your thinking was, but I for one prefer my Stasi Spies far away from the White House.

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

[Michael P]

I was thinking of the Cuban Missile Crisis, not entirely unsubstantiated rumors that were based on the behaviors of third and fourth parties. But you do you.

[Martinned]

I know. But your comment was incoherent either way, so I thought I'd remind you that security is a thing, and that the President shouldn't let randos wander around the White House.

If you'd like to talk about the Cuban Missile Crisis we can do that, of course, but then you first have to decide whether today you're a realist or an idealist when it comes to international relations. (Remember, you can't be an idealist on Cuba and a realist on Ukraine, at least not on the same day.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fact: JFK himself didn't think he would win re-election in 1964.
Fact: JFK went to Dallas to solidify his base in (then) solidly D Texas.
Fact: People in Dallas were placing paid advertising calling JFK a Communist.

Fact: Assassination is the route to greatness for a POTUS. People forget that Lincoln almost wasn't re-elected in 1864, etc.

[Martinned]

@Ed: I agree. Far and away the best thing JFK ever did for the US is get shot. That's what made the Civil Rights Act possible.

[Sarcastr0]

The US left loves JFK? As in, today?

You have no idea what the US left is like at all, do you?

[Michael P]

I have a better idea than you -- or at least more honest: https://presidentialgreatnessproject.com/
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/38/

[David Nieporent]

I think the problem is that you have a very poor understanding of what "the US left" is.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "The US left loves JFK? As in, today?"

For decades, it's been the storied "Camelot." That infatuation has been rooted in the left, and the beloved mythology has been understood by all.

You know that. And yet, given your own differences with the popular opinions of the left, and your unfalsifiable belief in the supremacy of your intellect, you cast all of the American left and Sarcastr0 as being of like mind.

When Sarcastr0 doubts the lovability of JFK, the left doubts the lovability of JFK. Because as Sarcastr0 goes, so do all right-minded people (in your little parochial mind).

[Michael P]

"love" was a classic Gaslight0 goalpost move. The original question was whether "Kennedy was a good president".

[Sarcastr0]

No, it isn't a goalpost move, lol. It's colloquial English.

Do you think I was saying the left wants to marry JFK or something?

[Stephen Lathrop]

No wins for doing the same as Kennedy?

Margrave — A notion is plainly crazy that Trump conducts himself in office in any way similar to Kennedy.

Like other rational policy makers, Kennedy was capable to blunder because he was capable to discern a difference between reason and folly. In a world which demands decisions on the basis of incomplete information, and which features an always unknowable future, that implies a hazard to choose mistakenly.

Whatever blunders Kennedy did commit, when he was supremely tested during the Cuban missile crisis, his capacity for judgment put him into the ranks of this nation's greatest presidents. When the stakes were truly existential, Kennedy made correct choices at multiple key junctures, sometimes in the face of chorused opposition from seasoned advisers. Nothing else any President ever did during my lifetime has mattered so much to the fate of the world.

As Trump's literally incessant lying demonstrates, Trump lacks any such ability. Even the notion of discernment is foreign to Trump. He plainly supposes a public as incapable of rational choice as he is. Thus, Trump cannot rightly be excused by any presumption he intended reason, but acted mistakenly.

Whatever processes are onogoing in Trump's brain, they include no capacity for reasoned decision. That ought to be as obvious to you as it is to the millions of Trump fans who cheer him on because they recognize how Trump works, and prefer it. They would rather government by Trump's id, than constraints supplied by law and reason. That is a group which reckons—maybe accurately—that their capacities are better served by scavenging chaos than by submitting to anything else.

You are unwise if you count yourself among them.

[Martinned]

Whatever blunders Kennedy did commit, when he was supremely tested during the Cuban missile crisis, his capacity for judgment put him into the ranks of this nation's greatest presidents. When the stakes were truly existential, Kennedy made correct choices at multiple key junctures, sometimes in the face of chorused opposition from seasoned advisers. Nothing else any President ever did during my lifetime has mattered so much to the fate of the world.

I guess we'll never know, because counterfactuals are hard.

That said, I would offer Nixon going to China, Nixon ending the Vietnam war, and Bush sr. passim as examples of foreign policy programmes that blow anything JFK did out of the water. Of course, Nixon made Vietnam worse before he made it better, so maybe let's not give him credit for that one, but still.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned, no nuclear explosions as a result of the Cuban missile crisis is not a counter-factual. Any contrary argument—that nuclear strikes were safely unlikely, for instance—would require extraordinary proof that I doubt anyone can find.

[Martinned]

I grew up within a few hours' drive from the Iron Curtain. Having the Soviets nearby doesn't mean you'd get nuked.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned — You might want to reconsider that. Your premise seems to be that the Soviets would not find cause to nuke Western Europe. You overlook that if the Soviets chose merely conventional force to invade westward, the U.S. assuredly would have nuked Western Europe, to stop the invasion.

What any of that has to do with Kennedy's historical legacy remains a legitimately contestable question. For the nuclear war policy piece, Daniel Ellsberg's book, The Doomsday Machine, affords an insider's perspective.

[Martinned]

The unanswerable question is whether going closer to nuclear war than at any other point during the Cold War in order to stop nukes from being sent to Cuba was the lesser evil, compared to having those nukes there. If you think the answer is obvious, you do you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned — Your comment above makes a sharp point, but remains over-simplified. It reminds me why I recommended Ellsberg.

I take it you have not read Ellsberg's book. If you do, you will discover that one of the worst blunders Kennedy could have made was to presume he was fully in control of America's nuclear arsenal. He wisely avoided doing that.

Neither Eisenhower nor Kennedy assumed they were in control. Ellsburg showed they were right. The military had independent capacity to start a nuclear war, either directly, or by deliberately provocative escalations. But that did not mean the military was in control either. No one was. Neither the politics nor the practicalities of nuclear command and control had yet been mastered. They still have not been.

Thus, whether Kennedy had power to prevent his generals from creating a catastrophic provocation was not an answerable question. The Cuban crisis was the moment when that possibility came closest to being realized. Kennedy's most senior commanders were in agreement, demanding an air strike against Cuba, followed by an invasion. The military and intelligence communities remained unaware that had that happened, a nuclear counter-strike using so-called tactical nuclear weapons may already have been authorized and ready. It is certain now, but was then unknown to the American military, that a conventional Soviet submarine at the scene was armed with nuclear torpedo warheads ready for immediate use. Operations as slight as an armed reconnaissance thus risked nuclear escalation.

Perhaps that means Kennedy should have sacked his entire top command in the midst of the crisis, as a threat to his own control of policy and war risk. Hindsight shows Kennedy got through the crisis without risking unforeseeable complications of doing anything so drastic. Seems wise to me.

Perhaps you agree with me that the Cold War nuclear arms race should never have been allowed to start. I think that critique remains as true and pressing today as it has ever been. Do you have a plan to unwind the world-wide nuclear weapons status quo? President Kennedy did not. No President since Kennedy has had one. President Trump's attention seems elsewhere.

In the abstract, all the nuclear age presidents get demerits alike for that. On what basis single out Kennedy?

[Brett Bellmore]

" A notion is plainly crazy that Trump conducts himself in office in any way similar to Kennedy."

Yeah, I don't think Trump is doing hot shots in the Oval office. I'm pretty sure he's not having nude pool parties with prostitutes, either.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — To defend Trump you point to his moral rectitude, and assert he has a character advantage over Kennedy?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, because it frankly doesn't require much to have a character advantage over Kennedy. The guy gets cut an absurd amount of slack on account of being successfully assassinated.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A bunch of table-pounding to distract from my point - that the constitutionality of Trump's actions should be weighed by the same standards as those of any President.

Could President Kennedy's administration keep transes out of the military? I notice you never answer the question. Though it has the same answer as the question whether the Trump administration could keep transes out of the military.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave — Take it up with someone else. I'm the guy who chastises commenters who rely on present context to evaluate historical occurrences which featured different contexts— contexts now generally forgotten, or, I think, in this case disregarded on purpose.

If you want to play, "Let's Pretend," then, sure, hold Kennedy to account for not making a decision that was politically unthinkable in his era. That may make you feel clever, or righteous, but it will do nothing at all to improve your insight into either the past or the present. More the opposite. To do it your way will confuse you about both eras.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You're really moving the goalposts. You started off by saying: "the Roberts Court should not be handing Trump any EO wins, except in slam-dunk 9–0 cases."

I suggested a single standard in contrast to your double standard: The Supreme Court should treat a Trump executive order against transsexual military service the *same* as it would treat such an order issued by Kennedy.

The idea of applying a double standard, and striking down an executive order because it was issued by the wrong President, has no warrant in the Consitution. If it's unconstitutional for Trump to do it, it was unconstitutional for Kennedy to do it. If it was constitutional for Kennedy to do it, it's constitutional for Trump to do it.

The fact that you like Kennedy and dislike Trump has no bearing on the constitutional issue of whether they had the power to keep transsexuals out of the military.

You thunder and pound the table to distract from your double standard and your advocacy of a rule of men, not laws.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave — To hold an ostensible originalist argument to the standards of historical scholarship is far from being a merely double standard. Historical insight is more difficult to understand, and harder to come by, than any double standard.

If you intended to make yourself ridiculous in every originalist analysis ever, you could not do better than to insist on use of present-minded experience to infer antique contextual meanings which have long since been forgotten. Do that, and you will almost never be correct.

I get that many advocates of so-called, "originalism," give no thought at all to whether assertions they make about the past are accurate. They hate it if anyone insists they ought to care. They take solace instead that they are members of a
like-minded professional community which shares an interest not to care. They instead prize license to tailor to present need their made-up accounts about what happened long ago.

Of course you remain at liberty to join them. You can make that decision at pleasure, or on the basis of informed insight, which takes time and laborious effort to acquire. It's a choice, maybe one which looks to you like a double standard.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What on earth are you babbling about?

Even after I've repeatedly expressed doubts about originalism in the Volokh comments section - and you surely must know this - you keep bringing out your anti-originalist rhetoric against what you want people to think I said.

I merely made an obviously non-originalist point about Presidential bans on transgender military service, in response to your double standard: "If it's unconstitutional for Trump to do it, it was unconstitutional for Kennedy to do it. If it was constitutional for Kennedy to do it, it's constitutional for Trump to do it."

Your bizarre distortions are as absurd as your calling me an "internet utopian" merely for suggesting that the era of print culture had its problems, too. In other words, because I didn't uniquely idolize the age of print, you assumed I was being utopian about teh internets.

You're arguing with bogeypersons in your own head.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave, time to invoke the mercy rule on your behalf.

You ask, "What on earth are you babbling about?"

The straightforward answer? Concepts I do not think are beyond your grasp, but apparently beyond your willingness to grasp. You apparently refuse to see their relevance to your own insistence, even while bystanders will.

Your peculiar switch to a completely unrelated disagreement—about the internet—examples discomfort. I have no wish to keep this exchange going, and collect example after example of blank incomprehension, accompanied by yet more intemperate rejoinders. Time to put an end to it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Here's what "bystanders" will be able to grasp:

You claim I'm an originalist. I am not.

You claim I'm an "Internet utopian." I am not.

You fill your responses with irrelevancies rather than discussing what I said.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[moved]

[Riva]

Damn right. The president is acting as if executive power is actually vested in him under the Constitution. Time for the judiciary to put a stop to this once and for all and clear up the obvious meaning of art. II, which clearly meant to says something quite the opposite of what it actually says. Thank goodness for judicial supremacy...er review.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How dare the Supreme Court question Trump's "interpretation" of the limits on his own authority under the Constitution!

[Riva]

Absolutely. Why limit themselves to the judicial power when there are so many other fun things they can do encroaching on the powers of the political branches? All that power and no elections. A win-win for the courts. And come on, so what if DJT was duly elected. Since when does democracy matter?

[jb]

How about the Court just tries to interpret the laws and the Constitution as they understand it? I'm fine with them mostly not trying to make political calculations one way or the other.

I'm also not super surprised by this outcome. The executive should get a lot of deference when it comes to running the military, even if they use their power to do shitty things.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The famous lines from Kenny Roger's The Gambler, translated into Latin by an AI:

Scire oportet quando retineas, quando relinquas, quando discedas, quando fugias.
Nunquam pecuniam numeres dum ad mensam ludorum sedes;
Tempus satis erit computandi cum transactio completa est.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bad translation. Not lyrical. AI fail.

[Riva]

Can AI sing it too?

[Dr. Ed 2]

India v. Pakistan --if the UN was not such a corrupt, incompetent waste of Oxygen, it would simply step in and end this.

"India vowed to strike back after a militant group known as The Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility for a terror attack targeting civilians in India on April 22."

That's how WWI started.

[Martinned]

Maybe someone should actually pay their fair share of the UN budget, and then it might be able to actually do something about something.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Fair share" my arse.
We should be charging them rent.

[Kazinski]

Daily Wire has an interesting story about one of the USAID entities shut down by DOGE:

"A foreign aid official who refused the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to his agency’s financial records may have had a reason to keep auditors out: he steered illicit contracts to a friend who sent him secret payments, according to a law enforcement affidavit obtained by The Daily Wire.

Mathieu Zahui, chief financial officer of the African Development Foundation, refused to grant DOGE access to its books and told the White House that the agency would not acknowledge President Donald Trump’s appointee as chairman of the board. After a dramatic showdown in March, DOGE physically took over the building with U.S. Marshals, but control of the agency is now the subject of a lawsuit objecting to “swooping in with DOGE staff, demanding access to sensitive information systems” — an objection that reads differently in light of the criminal probe."

Those of course are just allegations but the IG interviewed Zahui, and some of the answers were eye opening:
"Zahui was named chief financial officer of the federal agency after he declared bankruptcy and had his house foreclosed on. He acknowledged to investigators that the travel contract was executed after COVID had already shut down travel. He told them the contract was actually used for IT services, but since Ganiam had no expertise in IT, it subcontracted it to a different company. A Department of the Treasury contracting official told the agents that was not allowed.

Zahui continued to give more contracts to Ganiam without competition, which he justified by saying he was “lazy” and didn’t want to find a new vendor. “Zahui stated that he did not receive any direct or indirect benefits from Gakure,” agents wrote."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/foreign-aid-official-who-resisted-doge-took-secret-payments-after-steering-africa-money-to-friend

This isn't an earth shaking instance of fraud, but you wonder how many instances there were the way money was going out the door with no controls.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absent prior evidence of specific criminality, and absent a warrant, and with acknowledgment of unauthorized access to, "sensitive inormation," what makes you think anything, "reads differently?"

[BigT]

“the agency would not acknowledge President Donald Trump’s appointee as chairman of the board.”

Why would the chairman need a warrant to review data in his dept?

[Stephen Lathrop]

BigT — Which came first, unauthorized demand for access, or the, "appointment" of a so-called new chairman? And what power of law did that new chairman have to dispose of sensitive information into the hands of private parties unauthorized by law to have it?

What personal interest of yours engages you against the security of properly secret government records?

Also, you have not responded to absence of a warrant, potential misuse of U.S. Marshals improperly acting under the direction of someone not empowered by law to direct them, and the general question of fishing expeditions made without probable cause.

[Michael P]

There was specific evidence of criminality, in the form of specific information handed over by the agency's former general counsel -- although the Biden administration did nothing with it. There was a warrant, and it was executed. And there was no unauthorized access, just access that worried a guy violating acquisition regulations every which way (and getting kickbacks for it!).

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Zahui continued to give more contracts to Ganiam without competition, which he justified by saying he was “lazy” and didn’t want to find a new vendor."

Wouldn't that alone be criminal?

[Life of Brian]

Zahui was named chief financial officer of the federal agency after he declared bankruptcy and had his house foreclosed on.

This sort of thing is exactly why it rings so hollow every time someone wails about how I shouldn't trust two of the richest men in the world to audit the federal government because they're just out to steal my money. They don't need it at all, and certainly not badly enough to do stupid shit to try to siphon it off. It's the legion of desperate yuks like this, coupled with loosey-goosey systems they learn to exploit, that keeps me up at night.

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump, supposedly a billionaire at the time, ran a cheap real estate seminar scam and a multilevel marketing scam. Con men don't stop their conning ways just because they've made some money.

[Riva]

Kinda sounds like you're an election denier, crazy Dave.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, if your mind hopelessly conflates stuff like "people willingly paid money for a commercial service and some weren't happy with what they received" with stuff like "zomg he's gonna use your social security number to steal your retirement money," I don't know how to help you.

[bernard11]

"people willingly paid money for a commercial service and some weren't happy with what they received"

That's a description of Trump University only a cult member would write. Here's a nice discussion of the various complaints:

[Life of Brian]

Meh, I'm not sure citing a Wikipedia article was the best way to cap accusing me of having a slanted viewpoint.

Through gritted teeth, it does indeed use the word "allegations" in the context of the lawsuits from the dissatisfied customers I mentioned, and to my eye admits everything was dropped or settled.

As usual, tons of sizzle and precious little steak.

[bernard11]

$25M worth of steak.

[Life of Brian]

"I'll take context-free statistics for $500, Alex." Not quickly coming up with annual revenue numbers and wouldn't necessarily expect them to be public, but I see the Cohen complaint alleged that their advertising budget alone was $6M/year.

Also don't forget that he had just been elected president shortly before this was to go to trial, so some of the settlement value was just buying his calendar back during the transition.

[rloquitur]

Aren't you proud of your Trump University degree?

[Sarcastr0]

You don't get ridiculously wealthy by only stealing the money you strictly need.

Humans are acquisitive well beyond immediate needs.

[Life of Brian]

You don't get ridiculously wealthy by only stealing

Fascinating and very unsubtle thesis. What did Soros steal? Obama? Pelosi? Or is this one of those deals where you have a secret definition of "ridiculously" that only sweeps in people outside your tribe?

[Sarcastr0]

Good fucking lord. You're not good at jokes.
Do you actually think I was arguing that all rich peoples' wealth is stolen?

Nice guys finish last, but a bastard isn't the same as stealing.

And yes, Biden and Pelosi sure had some bastardly moments.

[Life of Brian]

You're not good at jokes.

Deadpan in writing was tough enough before Nathan Poe came along. 10ish years ago I might have taken it that way, but these days you've turned into quite the SINO (Sarcastr0 in Name Only).

Do you actually think I was arguing that all rich peoples' wealth is stolen?

That certainly wouldn't be even close to the most outrageous thing you've said around here.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Good fucking lord. You're not good at jokes."

That's one possibility...

[Riva]

Still, good old fashioned fraud. Almost refreshing compared to the climate grifters

[Dr. Ed 2]

Under 18 U.S.C. §1961, "racketeering activity" appears to include theft, embezzlement, fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering, criminal copyright infringement, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country for financial gain, and supporting terrorists/terrorism.

OK. if the Presidents of various US colleges and universities conspire to (a) discriminate on the basis of race and (b) conceal it -- have national meetings where they discuss this in private -- could this be RICO?

What would it take to be RICO?

[Martinned]

1. No

2. A crime

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't fraud a crime?

[Martinned]

Generally, yes. What does that have to do with what you said?

[BigT]

“a) discriminate on the basis of race”
Crime.

[Martinned]

It's illegal, but is it a crime?

[TaioF920]

Yes. They're conspiring against rights in violation of 18 USC 241. Access to government grants, even indirectly, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, they are conspiring to receive Federal funds in violation of the "thou shalt not discriminate" conditions for doing so.

IANAA but if Donald Trump's purported misvaluation of his properties was fraud, then THIS would be fraud as well, and perpetrated by multiple, independent, institutions would constitute RICO.

Why not?

[Ridgeway]

Trump (grossly) overstated his asset values in writing to a lender for the purpose of getting something of value (a lower interest rate) from that lender.

That is fraud.

Simply doing something nefarious in private is not fraud.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But swearing that you aren't IS a crime.

[TaioF920]

And all of the lenders testified that they knew what the values were and were happy with the underwriting. Who was the victim?

This is leaving aside the fact that Judge Engmoron's determination was completely bogus, valuing Mar A Lago at $18 million.

[David Nieporent]

And all of the lenders testified that they knew what the values were and were happy with the underwriting. Who was the victim?

None of the lenders in fact testified that way. The transcripts are all online; feel free to quote the parts where they said that.

This is leaving aside the fact that Judge Engmoron's determination was completely bogus, valuing Mar A Lago at $18 million.

Yet another tired talking point that was eviscerated a year ago. There was a summary judgment motion. One side — the state — submitted admissible evidence about the valuation of the property. The other side — Trump — did not. On summary judgment, the court doesn't make factual determinations; it simply assesses whether the different sides have evidentiary support for their positions. If both sides do, or only the non-moving party does, then the motion is denied. If only the moving party does, then the moving party wins.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That is fraud."

Reliance is an element of fraud.

[not guilty]

"Access to government grants, even indirectly, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, TaioF920?

[SRG2]

Not when Dear Leader does it. Then it becomes a sacrament.

[Riva]

He should have bribed the Big Guy for a blanket pardon when he had the chance.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with." --- JD Vance

https://www.themainewire.com/2025/05/what-romanian-runoff-says-about-the-russian-ruse/

[Martinned]

He said it...

[Michael P]

And...? Is it against EC policy to admit that their continent is full of a bunch of autocracies play-acting at democracy and respecting the citizenry?

[Martinned]

It is against EU policy to let the Russians hijack our elections. You should try it. But of course the US has just dismantled all its defences against Russian (election) interference...

[Michael P]

Ah, yes, the famous "it became necessary to destroy the democracy in order to save it" rationalization.

I have no desire to hijack US elections. Russians tried it, and US democracy was strong enough that Russia's efforts had no measurable effect. Much more concerted and better-funded efforts by Democrats to use US government resources to hijack our elections, similar to what you suggest, succeed in 2020 but failed in 2024.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Actually swing voters said high gasoline prices in 2022 swayed their vote to Trump. So Putin did sway the election with his actions of invading Ukraine. The invasion helped American frackers become profitable and made us energy dominant…but Americans didn’t like a few months of high gasoline prices.

[Martinned]

I have no desire to hijack US elections. Russians tried it, and US democracy was strong enough that Russia's efforts had no measurable effect.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But seriously, I'm sure it's a coincidence that three quarters of the commenters here spend all their time typing out Russian propaganda.

[Riva]

If you like lies and propaganda, I have a dossier and pee tape I can sell to you really cheap now, if you're interested.

[Martinned]

[moved]

[NvEric]

To all who support immigration, especially the recent mass invasion type, remember it is colonialism, pure and simple.

You support the further degradation of the native peoples of this continent. No one who has entered in recent years belongs here.

Your attitude is destructive to native peoples' way of life and causes other problems we can do without.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

What does being an American entitle one to?? The opportunity to buy a $700k house in Dallas with property taxes and insurance and utilities probably $2k a month! Gee, thanks.

[TJJ2000]

All brought to you by socialist minds that keep invading this nation because their 'armed-theft' ZERO-SUM resources game failed in their last one.

The "conquer and consume" mentality until there is nothing left and what is left costs a fortune for anyone still trying to *EARN*.

[Sarcastr0]

The socialist minds
They live inside of my head
The socialist minds
They come to me in my bed
The socialist minds
They're coming to arrest me, oh no

[TaioF920]

Anti-racism is code for anti-white.

[Martinned]

You should probably take a minute and reflect on what you just wrote there.

[Commenter_XY]

SCOTUS decision to affirm that the mentally disturbed need not be retained in the military....Yes, I speak of the Gender Confused Ban.

My question. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was controversial when instituted by Clinton. In the intervening years, homosexual troops have achieved a measure of success, and acceptance.

Why won't the same happen with the gender confused troops; initial rejection, then toleration, then a measure of acceptance? Is it legal impediment, cultural impediment, both?

[BigT]

By that logic furries would need to be treated like the animals they pretend to be.

[Martinned]

Do they?

[Martinned]

Of course trans soldiers will serve in the military again eventually. We're just in a short period where reactionaries have discovered that trans people make for good cannon fodder in the culture wars, because it is somehow still socially acceptable to bully them in a way that it isn't socially acceptable anymore to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OR will we have a light of sanity and realize that sodomites don't belong in the military?

Forget winning wars, the Gay Navy can't manage not to hit things with its ships.

[Riva]

Well sure, and why limit yourself to "trans"? I thought there were multiple possible ways the mentally disturbed could identify themselves?

[Frank Drackman]

Because with the current rules they’re non deployable which makes them useless

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, forget rules and talk medically -- ANYONE with daily medical needs is nondeployable and for good reason.

[Frank Drackman]

as the Late, Great Bugs Bunny would say,
"What a Ma-roon!"
"Anyone with daily medical needs is non deployable"
Oh, so there aren't any Super Hornet/F-35, F-16, F-15 pilots on Blood Pressure meds? NSAID's? Tamsulosin?
Once they get their wings the military will do almost everything to keep someone flying, if it's really bad, i.e. lose an eye or a hand, they'll ground them,
When new Guard/Reserve Squadrons would get to Aviano, they'd all show up at medical to get their meds they'd conveniently "forgotten" to bring with them, Digoxin, Metformin, Statins. Prostrate, what were you gonna do? these Guard/Reserve pilots/mechanics have been doing the same job for up to 40 years (unlike the Active forces, they don't get retirement pay until they're 60)
Current Marine Corpse Commandant had Quadruple Bypass last year, is he "Non Deployable"??

[Speaking for normal people]

Such a poor grasp of things
When Muslim suicide troops get to see the US symbolized by Dylan Mulvaney in fatigues they will hate us with a super-human hate. ANd the troops themselves don't want to die so a utter psycho demon like Sam Brinton or a disgrace like the Buttigiegs can people the world. Get all the deviant poster children out of the military. It destroys our troops morale and paint us a perverts to the rest of the world

What do you think is made of this in IRAN
https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2164236/sam-brinton-during-trevor-projects-trevorlive.jpg

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Hegseth is fighting the last war…which is fine because the next war will be fought with drones and in space. Whoever was SecDef right now would be making inconsequential decisions and so if Hegseth makes the warriors that fought in the asinine GWOT happy then that works for me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The next war will be fought without satellites and hence with circa-1960 Boy Scout skills.

[David Nieporent]

SCOTUS decision to affirm

No such event happened.

[not guilty]

SCOTUS hasn't "affirm[ed]" anything, XY. They have merely issued a stay of a preliminary injunction in one case while the matter is being litigated there, as well as in two other cases which are unaffected by the stay.

[shawn_dude]

"some measure of success"

Bullshit. Homosexual soldiers have been fighting in wars since forever and have been in the US military since day one of the US itself. You have no means to measure their success because you cannot even identify most of them.

Trans soldiers are no different except that they can be identified. But just like with homosexual soldiers, the main complaints against them have nothing to do with the quality of their service but with vile stereotypes. The military would be better off ejecting people who cannot perform their service professionally which includes people who think trans persons are mentally ill.

[Jerry B.]

Sort of a suggestion to take the one grand and go home.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh look, an acolyte of St. Abrego speaks, LOL.

https://tennesseestar.com/justice/doj-reportedly-gave-limited-immunity-to-human-smuggler-who-owned-van-driven-by-kilmar-abrego-garcia-for-details-on-2022-trip/tpappert/2025/05/06/

How about that. St. Abrego really was a serial wife beating, human trafficking POS illegal alien gangbanger. Would you like to continue to offer yourselves as sacrifices upon the Altar of Abrego? LMAO.

This isn't about due process. This is about getting 'taken'. You hitched your wagon to a POS gangbanger; enjoy the downward spiral.

[Martinned]

Sure, keep making things up in the hope that people don't notice that you're advocating that Trump should be able to kidnap whoever he likes whenever he likes and stick them in a foreign hellhole prison.

[Michael P]

Abrego Garcia had a fraudulently obtained protection from deportation. He got caught breaking the law after getting that, and the Biden administration ordered him to be released rather than enforcing the law. Why is it that the left always jumps to defend the kind of filth who beat their wives, who jump neighborhood watch members and beat their heads into the sidewalk, who resist arrest while high on lethal levels of drugs, and so on, against any consequences? Why is it that the left lies about what other people are saying and doing in order to distract from what is actually going on -- as Martinned does here, and as others have done in falsely accusing Trump of deporting American children when their parents choose to take them out of the US?

[Martinned]

So that's another person who would rather make stuff up than defend the most basic liberty of Americans and other US residents.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, it's barely worth it, but what the heck:

Abrego Garcia had a fraudulently obtained protection from deportation.

This is gibberish. A court heard testimony and determined that Garcia would be in danger if sent back to El Salvador. What could be "fraudulent" about that?

He got caught breaking the law after getting that, and the Biden administration ordered him to be released rather than enforcing the law.

I guess "got caught breaking the law" means something other than actually getting caught breaking the law. Here in the U.S. we wait for trials to determine that. And the Biden administration did not and could not "order him to be released." Tennessee police did not and do not work for the president and do not take orders from him.

Why is it that the left always jumps to defend the kind of filth who beat their wives, who jump neighborhood watch members and beat their heads into the sidewalk, who resist arrest while high on lethal levels of drugs, and so on, against any consequences?

I mean, the right not only jumped to defend worse than such filth, but elected him as president. So maybe the whole "glass houses" thing applies here.

falsely accusing Trump of deporting American children when their parents choose to take them out of the US?

Trump deported American children when their parents didn't choose to take them out of the U.S. What kind of sociopath are you that you would lie about this? The parents were trying to make arrangements for the kids to stay here, and ICE deported them.

[Michael P]

That's why we call you Lieporent.

The supposed threat to Abrego Garcia was from a rival gang. That's not a basis for refugee status under treaty or statute.

We wait for trial to determine punishment, but handing over an expired ID as a driver's license shows that one was breaking the law.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-department-investigating-2022-abrego-garcia-traffic-stop/story?id=121492776 substantiates the FBI as directing the release of the illegal immigrants in that stop:

Per standard protocol, the THP contacted federal law enforcement authorities with the Biden-era FBI -- the agency of jurisdiction -- who made the decision not to detain him.

You always make crazy, unsourced claims that rely on distortions and misrepresentations.

[David Nieporent]

The supposed threat to Abrego Garcia was from a rival gang. That's not a basis for refugee status under treaty or statute.

The supposed threat to Abrego Garcia was from a gang, not a "rival" gang, and that is a statutory basis for withholding of removal. (Which — not "refugee status" — is what the judge found he was entitled to.) Which is why the Trump administration didn't even bother to appeal.

We wait for trial to determine punishment, but handing over an expired ID as a driver's license shows that one was breaking the law.

You got me on the nitpick! This terrible danger to the country that had to be removed immediately had indeed failed to renew a driver's license! Seems like execution rather than deportation is appropriate for such a crime against humanity… but for some reason, the Tennessee police thought it didn't merit more than a warning.

Per standard protocol, the THP contacted federal law enforcement authorities with the Biden-era FBI -- the agency of jurisdiction -- who made the decision not to detain him.

You always make crazy, unsourced claims that rely on distortions and misrepresentations.

It's weird how you triumphantly quote something that disproves what you say. Even setting aside the lack of corroboration for the claim about the FBI, it does not say that the FBI — which of course is not ICE, which would be the normal agency to call in such a circumstance — ordered them to let him go; it says that the FBI "made the decision not to detain him." (Note: the FBI (or ICE) not detaining him did not and could not prevent the Tennessee police from detaining him.)

[Michael P]

Wrong again. From https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-withholding-of-removal :

Individuals who apply for withholding of removal are held to a higher standard than people seeking asylum. Instead of having to prove that their fear of persecution is “well-founded,” people seeing withholding must demonstrate it is “more likely than not” that they would be persecuted in their home country if forced to return there, unless they can prove that they have suffered persecution on account of a protected ground in the past.

Unless the gang is in fact a paramilitary or state actor, threats from a gang are not persecution under the relevant definitions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Instead of having to prove that their fear of persecution is “well-founded,” people seeing withholding must demonstrate it is “more likely than not” that they would be persecuted in their home country if forced to return there,..."

Didn't an immigration judge determine exactly that?

So are you second-guessing the actual judge who heard the case?

[David Nieporent]

It is not clear to me what statement of mine you think that your article contradicts, such that I could be "wrong." I know what the standard is, and the judge analyzed Garcia's claim under that standard.

Hint: nothing in the statute or regulations requires that the persecution be done by the foreign government.

[Michael P]

This part is wrong:

that is a statutory basis for withholding of removal. (Which — not "refugee status" — is what the judge found he was entitled to.)

Withholding of removal implies refugee status because the former has strictly narrower conditions.

The problem for you is that both treat and statute require "persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion" -- and gang membership is fundamentally different from the kind of social groups that was meant to cover. There are other wrinkles related to the persecution being due to criminal actions and (lack of in-)ability to avail himself of his country's legal protections against that persecution that also undercut his asylum claims. In practice, that last part is what requires the persecution to happen in concert with the person's home government.

[Brett Bellmore]

Withholding of removal does NOT imply refugee status, in fact, if you qualified for refugee status you wouldn't NEED withholding of removal.

I’m Afraid to Go Back A Guide to Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and The Convention Against Torture"

"How Are Asylum and Withholding of Removal Different?
Asylum and Withholding of Removal are different in several important ways:
■ Through Withholding of Removal, you cannot get permanent
residency. That means you cannot get a green card. Winning a case for Withholding of Removal only means that the U.S. government will not send you back to your home country. But if another country is willing to accept you, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may try to send you there instead.
■ For Withholding of Removal, your application is only for you. You cannot apply for your family. If you win your case, you win only for yourself. Your family members must apply for themselves.
■ Even if more than 1 year has passed since you entered the United States, you can apply for Withholding of Removal. This is different from asylum. With an asylum claim you must apply within 1 year after you enter the U.S.
■ If you have a previous deportation order you can still apply for Withholding of Removal.
■ If you have a criminal history you MAY be able to apply for Withholding of Removal. But usually you cannot apply if you have been convicted for a really serious crime."

[David Nieporent]

Withholding of removal implies refugee status because the former has strictly narrower conditions.

When even Brett is better at logically parsing a statute than you are, you're in really bad shape. As he correctly notes, withholding of removal and refugee status are mutually exclusive. Withholding of removal only applies to people who are removable, by definition. People actually determined to be refugees aren't removable.

and gang membership is fundamentally different from the kind of social groups that was meant to cover.

That's true, but there was no finding of gang membership. I know you people have convinced yourself that "two separate judges found that he was a gang member," but (a) that is, as I have repeatedly explained, incorrect; and (b) even if it were true, that wouldn't have been a finding about his time in El Salvador 8 years earlier. The "social group" in question was his nuclear family, not MS-13.

There are other wrinkles related to the persecution being due to criminal actions

The persecution was not due to criminal actions. Again: I repeat: the whole MS-13 thing is a (largely racist) fantasy. There's no evidence for it now, and there was even less then, and not even a hint of it for his time in El Salvador.

You neither understand the facts nor the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason withholding of removal has stricter conditions is because it's extending protection to people who already have been disqualified from asylum. And they have to make the case that they should get some sort of protection anyway.

That's inherently a more difficult case to make.

[Life of Brian]

You got me on the nitpick!

From David "Too Clever" Nieporent, that's high praise indeed.

[Michael P]

He seems to want "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof for every traffic stop. I didn't even go for the real technicalities, where Abrego Garcia couldn't provide proof of insurance and (successfully) bought time by claiming he would have to call his boss to find it, or whether they passed through any states where Abrego Garcia's expired license would never have allowed even when it was valid.

[Riva]

Not sure about the danger he's in. He's still got his MS-13 bona fides. Are you suggesting a rival gang might be after him? He sure seemed relaxed enough sipping margaritas with the senator.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You mean the "MS13" tattooed on his knuckles?

[Riva]

Gangbangers never leave home without them, especially when they trespass over the borders of other countries to engage in human trafficking.

[Frank Drackman]

If Saint Floyd George had been in a Salvadoran Prison in 2020 instead of Minneapolis, he'd still be alive.

[Kazinski]

"Sure, keep making things up"

Thanks for reminding us, that when the Tennessee Star first reported that Garcia was stopped by THP for suspected human trafficking the claim was the stop.never happened at all, and was a fabrication.

That only lasted a few days, though, and then was exploded completely when the body cam footage came out, and showed that he was suspected of trafficking when he was stopped.

Now the man Garcia said was his boss confirms he was his boss, and that he was being paid for trafficking, and you claim its made up again.

There is a credibility problem, but its not with the Star, or the administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Didn’t you get dinged for taking the Tennessee Star as a legit source?

And as DMN pointed out cops gossiping to one another isn’t proof of anything.

A master class in taking whatever agrees with your priors as true and turning off any critical thinking.

[Kazinski]

Maybe you would have to come up with an example of a story they got wrong to immune their credibility.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that goes a bit too far. It's perfectly possible for the administration and the Star to have credibility problems, AND for specific claims or reportage to be none the less true. I mean, I wouldn't say the National Enquirer was exactly credible, but I'm aware of at least one news story I was tangentially involved in that they got exactly right.

Claiming a specific report or assertion is wrong because it's the Trump administration or the Star, though, is the ad hominem fallacy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Claiming a specific report or assertion is wrong because it's the Trump administration or the Star, though, is the ad hominem fallacy.

Bellmore — No sensible person does that. A sensible person says sources of that kind remain useless absent proof not yet provided, and withholds judgment. Later, if no proof ever shows up, a sensible person discounts the useless allegation to something near zero, or forgets it.

[SRG2]

Claiming a specific report or assertion is wrong because it's the Trump administration or the Star, though, is the ad hominem fallacy.

It isn't. You're guilty of a common mistake concerning this fallacy - one might even call it the ad hominem fallacy fallacy. It applies to arguments, not assertions. If I supply a factual premise but you disagree with the conclusion of a logical argument based on that premise on the grounds that "well, you would say that because you're a liberal" or whatever, that is ad hominem, But if I make an assertion for which I provide no evidence and you doubt it because I'm a liberal, that is merely disagreement.

[Josh R]

I've never heard of that distinction before. Accepting the distinction, I would not characterize an outright rejection (not merely doubting) of an assertion because of the source as a "disagreement." It's still a fallacious conclusion that strikes me as ad hominem. But perhaps you know of a better word to describe it.

[SRG2]

I've never heard of that distinction before.

And now you have. 🙂

It's still a fallacious conclusion that strikes me as ad hominem.

It's not a illogical to assess the probability of someone's veracity depending on their interest. In fact, it's rational to do so. And (and hence) it's not a formal fallacy.

[Josh R]

It's fallacious if you state the probability is zero that their assertion is wrong (and I believe it's an informal fallacy, as is ad hominem, which this still strikes me as an example of).

[bernard11]

Claiming a specific report or assertion is wrong because it's the Trump administration or the Star, though, is the ad hominem fallacy.

There is a difference between claiming something is wrong and claiming it's useless and unreliable. When dealing with known habitual liars it is perfectly reasonable to refuse to accept their statements as true, or proof of anything.

[David Nieporent]

That only lasted a few days, though, and then was exploded completely when the body cam footage came out, and showed that he was suspected of trafficking when he was stopped.

The body cam footage showed a couple of cops gossiping, and not actually doing anything about any alleged trafficking. Moreover, it was conveniently off when they supposedly talked to the FBI and the FBI "ordered" them to let him go.

Now the man Garcia said was his boss confirms he was his boss,

That… doesn't really sound very damning.

and that he was being paid for trafficking, and you claim its made up again.

So… an anonymous source says that Trump bought a convicted criminal's alleged statement that nobody has heard.

[David Nieporent]

Just think about how pathetic Trump is. Whether Abrego Garcia was in fact driving around illegal immigrants in 2022 ("trafficking" is just political demagoguery, though not that originates from Trump) has literally no bearing on Garcia's case. It doesn't make his deportation to El Salvador any less illegal, and wouldn't make his presence in the U.S. any more illegal. And yet in a desperate attempt to make himself look less terrible, Trump's trying to establish that Garcia broke the law by making a deal with an alleged higher level criminal. If this were actually about lawbreaking, he'd be making a deal with Garcia to get Hernandez Reyes, not the other way around. But it's not; it's about smearing Garcia to distract from Trump's lawbreaking.

The best case for Trump's behavior here is that he is going to bring Abrego Garcia back, as legally required, and then prosecute and imprison him in the U.S., as legally permitted, to save face.

[Life of Brian]

Whether Abrego Garcia was in fact driving around illegal immigrants in 2022 ("trafficking" is just political demagoguery, though not that originates from Trump) has literally no bearing on Garcia's case.

Ah, we've officially (if quietly) shifted gears from "no way that happened" to "it doesn't matter if it happened." Next stop, "of course it happened, and that's a good thing."

[David Nieporent]

We of course were never at "no way that happened," but you can't help but lie.

[Life of Brian]

Speaking of lying, you yourself specifically berated me me for not uncritically swallowing his seat-of-the-pants cover story that he was driving 8 people with no luggage 1400 miles across the country "for work."

Now you've abandoned that haughty if fragile lily pad for "trafficking is an icky word, and it doesn't matter anyway."

Can't wait for the next squirmy pivot!

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of lying, you yourself specifically berated me me for not uncritically swallowing his seat-of-the-pants cover story that he was driving 8 people with no luggage 1400 miles across the country "for work."

Um, what? He was driving them for work. There doesn't seem to be any dispute about that.

[Life of Brian]

Huh? Is this another one of those "I know this because of someone else's paystubs that have no connection at all to these people and I can't show you anyway" deals?

[David Nieporent]

Huh? Is this another one of those "I know this because of someone else's paystubs that have no connection at all to these people and I can't show you anyway" deals?

No, it's because that's what he says and what the guy everyone seems to agree was his boss reportedly says.

[Life of Brian]

and what the guy everyone seems to agree was his boss reportedly says

I didn't think we were supposed to trust what the boss says, but maybe those were yesterday's rules.

In any event, if you think he said that somewhere, feel free to provide a link. All the ABC article says is that he "claimed to have hired [Garcia] on multiple occasions to transport undocumented migrants from Texas to various locations in the United States."

[Riva]

Being illegal alone is a basis to eject him. Being a gangbanger doesn't help him. And removing him in expedited proceedings is authorized under the law. Clinton must have done it a million (literally) times.

[Commenter_XY]

David, what's pathetic is to keep digging. It isn't demagoguery to accurately note that the wife beating (court docs), human trafficking (the bodycam don't lie, David), illegal alien (yeah, he is) gangbanger (don't believe my lying eyes with the gang tattoos, amirite?) is a thoroughly loathesome individual we don't want in this country.

An administrative error was made, the equivalent of checking the wrong box on a form. BFD. He was going to get deported, one way or the other. I am just glad it was expedited; St. Abrego will never return to America to victimize others. And no, a fed dist ct judge does not tell POTUS Trump whether and how to conduct foreign policy; that is simply not happening.

But no, you (and others) want to keep digging. This sounds like a winning electoral formula. Truly, St. Abrego (and his illegal alien gangbanger brothers) is the 'all-in' political issue, a surefire winner! 😉

David: Elections have consequences. The other team is making policy now. This is what happens when the other team wins; they set the agenda and carry it out. These cases? They're speed bumps. What matters is who is sworn into the House in January 2027.

[Josh R]

SCOTUS (unanimously)

requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.

It would seem the other team's policy is still subject to judicial review.

[Commenter_XY]

Pres Bukele has refused to release the gangbanger, St Abrego.

The 'facilitate' discussion is moot.

[Josh R]

It's not moot until the courts say it is. For example, perhaps Bukele would change his mind if we condition funding his prison on returning Garcia.

Also, you didn't comment on the due process aspect of the SCOTUS ruling.

[David Nieporent]

Pres Bukele has refused to release the gangbanger, St Abrego.

That is a lie. Trump has by his own admission never asked.

[Commenter_XY]

Pres Bukele has made public statements that St Abrego will not be released. That discussion is over, David.

[David Nieporent]

As Joe Wilson said to Obama, "You lie." That's not what Bukele said.

[Commenter_XY]

St Abrego is where? 🙂

He ain't coming back.

[not guilty]

"Pres Bukele has made public statements that St Abrego will not be released."

When and where did he make any such statement(s)?

[bernard11]

(don't believe my lying eyes with the gang tattoos, amirite?)

You're an idiot. Nobody is denying that he has tattoos, which is all your eyes can tell you. What they are questioning is the claim tat the tattoos are somehow evidence of gang membership. BTW, Trump showing a picture of the tattoos with "MS-13" photoshopped onto the fingers is not evidence of anything except Trump's foolishness and his cultists gullibility.

Nor have you yet understood that the issue here is the lack of due process, and your approval of that. Under your preferred procedures, if one day Trump or another President decides that XY should be deported you will have no opportunity to defend yourself, challenge the basis of the order, or do anything but get in the plane and fly off to prison somewhere.

Amazing.

[Commenter_XY]

I certainly approve of deporting illegal alien gangbangers, bernard11. You wish to keep them here, victimizing Americans and others. Cover the mirrors in your home.

[bernard11]

Once again, you demonstrate that you are too stupid to understand any of the issues here.

[David Nieporent]

It isn't demagoguery to accurately note that the wife beating (court docs),

Um, no. An allegation by a litigant is not a "court doc."

human trafficking (the bodycam don't lie, David),

No, but people do; the bodycam doesn't show any "human trafficking." It shows a guy in a car with some other guys.

gangbanger (don't believe my lying eyes with the gang tattoos, amirite?)

Don't believe your lying mouth claiming those are gang tattoos when that is a complete Internet fabrication (which is precisely why Trump had to photoshop the picture to trick people, because no intelligent honest person looked at those and said, "Oh, yeah, those are gang tattoos.")

An administrative error was made, the equivalent of checking the wrong box on a form

Incorrect. It was the equivalent of punching a random person in the face because you mistakenly thought he insulted you. There's no incorrectly-filled-out-form here. All the forms were accurately filled out; they just shouldn't have been filled out at all.

[Commenter_XY]

Keep digging....It is surely a winning formula!

[David Nieporent]

Opposing Nazis in 1940s Germany wasn't a winning formula. So what? Why are you on the side of Nazis, C_XY?

[jb]

You seem to have a weird understanding of the term "acolyte".

It's kind of sad that the government is giving a deal to someone who is definitely a human trafficker and a serial immigration offender, just so they can dig up dirt on the guy that they erroneously deported. Especially since the alternative is just to ask for him back and, get his withholding of removal revoked, and then re-deport him. Seems like that would take vastly less effort from very senior people within the government as well.

[Commenter_XY]

Deport them both.

[not guilty]

Whether Khalil Abrego Garcia as an individual is returned from El Salvador neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.

The degradation and abject disregard of the rule of law by a president, however, affects all of us in a bad way. Due Process is not reserved for nice people.

[shawn_dude]

Remember folks, the government doesn't have to follow the law if the people it's steamrolling over are unlikable, or brown, or both.

[Speaking for normal people]

Trying to change the subject ??????

all those drug stories and today I see maybe the 5th horror story on drugs of the year

Marijuana can stunt or even kill babies in the womb: Study
Joseph MacKinnon
May 06, 2025

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Oh noooos!! Rich American women don’t even get pregnant anymore…they hire Indian surrogates. That’s why the abortion issue is so dumb…by 2035 wealthy Americans will be trashing 50% of the embryos they create in a lab…fuck ‘em!

[Frank Drackman]

What happened to all of the DemoKKKrat Politicians going to El Salvador to kiss Kill-more Garcia's (redacted)??? I noticed AOC isn't one of them, smart cookie

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Did you weep for Elian Gonzalez?? So sadz. But at least the episode helped elect Bush…who ended up sacrificing 7000 soldiers to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims while shipping millions of jobs to China and crashing the economy. But so sadz about Elian. 😉

[ReaderY]

There are news reports that Musk is running a huge data center for one of his companies on generators with no pollution controls at all, and they are belchijg toxic smoke into neighborhoods and homes in Memphis, making the air stink and increasing asthma related.deaths.

My question is this. The EPA preempts traditional state common law on nuisance, and as enforced does nothing in its place. Can the neighborhood people sue the federal government on grounds that it has effected a Kelo-style regulatory taking? The argument would be that when you can smell it inside your home pollution represents a physical intrusion on property. The federal government has taken private propety owners traditional right to eject polluting intrudors through preempting nuisance laws in the same way that when government preempts trespass laws and gives property owners no recourse it permits a physical intrusion on property and effects a taking.

Liberals have traditionally opposed regulatory takings doctrines. But given that the EPA currently exists largely to aid polluters against surrounding communities, why not use conservative tools to address the situation?

[Martinned]

Isn't that more of a Sackett v. EPA situation? How can the EPA have authority to regulate pollution that never leaves the state?

[bernard11]

How can the EPA have authority to regulate pollution that never leaves the state?

Memphis is more or less at the juncture of TN, MS, and AR. If you belch toxic smoke in Memphis, depending on where you are, some of it is likely to reach AR or MS.

[Martinned]

Fair enough. And if it's about methane you're talking climate change, which is clearly something the Federal government should take a legitimate interest in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Musk is virtuously taking that Methane, with it's high greenhouse potential, and converting it to the much less effective CO2. It's a public service. 😉

[Commenter_XY]

He has a liberal arts degree, not STEM. It's a limitation.

[Jerry B.]

Apparently, they’re burning methane, which generates about the same pollution as natural gas, since natural gas is largely methane anyway. Too bad he can’t install some of those small subterranean nuke reactors. That’d really piss the enviros off.

[Brett Bellmore]

Once Musk moved off the liberal plantation all tech billionaires are expected to reside on, he started getting bad press. This is just part of it.

Think you'd even have heard of this if he were still a loyal supporter of the Democratic party?

[Martinned]

Think you'd even have heard of this if he were still a loyal supporter of the Democratic party?

I don't know about that "still", but yes. In that case it would have been plastered all over Newsmaxxx, and ever second comment on this blog would have mentioned it.

[bernard11]

Think you'd even have heard of this if he were still a loyal supporter of the Democratic party?

Yes. The conspiracy only exists in your head.

[shawn_dude]

Musk took advantage of government handouts only to turn around and vocally decry government handouts at the moment they were no longer useful for him but were still advantaging his competitors.

I'm still waiting for him to be deported to El Salvador for violating his student visa and working illegally.

[Kazinski]

Where's the cite on that?

Nobody runs a data center on generators, it would be way too expensive, and unreliable.

They may have emergency backup generation, but not that's way different.

[Michael P]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/06/elon-musk-xai-memphis-gas-turbines-air-pollution-permits-00317582 says it's because the commercial utility power wasn't available quickly enough.

[ReaderY]

I understand they are claiming the turbines are legally classifiable as backup generators and hence exempt from pollution control rules, even though they run essentually continuously. The article says they shut down one day a year to create a discontinuity for purposes of maintaining the claimed legal status.

[Brett Bellmore]

So complying with the letter of the law, not the spirit. But, when you comply with the letter of the law, you comply with the law.

Musk isn't the only one doing this, though. It was brought on by how widely the electric utilities have been crippled: They simply can't supply the juice.

[shawn_dude]

In Texas?! The only thing crippling the grid in Texas is Texas. They are infamously disconnected from the national grid. (And trying to undo that stupidity rapidly.) They have a largely unregulated market. So if the utilities there are crippled, it's through their own choices.

[Brett Bellmore]

"They have a largely unregulated market."

Nonsense. They have a 'market', but it's regulated into incoherence.

[Kazinski]

Its bullshit anyway:

"None of the 35 methane gas turbines"

"making the air stink and increasing asthma related.deaths."

Methane is CH4. So the product of burning one molecule of methane is 4 H2O, and 1 CO2.

That diHydrogenMonoxide can be nasty, and if you get too much in your lungs it can kill you, but CO2 is benign plant food.

So.what's causing the asthma?

[Michael P]

Probably the other industrial plants in the area, which the Journolist(tm) decreed were not worth blaming.

[Kazinski]

Whoops, that would be 2 H2O, not 4.

So that cuts the dangerous diHydrogenMonoxide emissions in half.

[Dr. Ed 2]

IANAA but watching the Conservation Law Foundation and others, and knowing how unpopular Musk is, were this really happening, he'd be sued already.

[Armchair]

Liberals continue their attacks on religion.

No one doubts child abuse is bad, so there are mandatory reporter laws in place. Washington State decided that many people, including members of the clergy, should be mandatory reporters. That's not really a problem. But....they threw in a bunch of exceptions for privileged communication....spousal privileges, attorney client privileges, etc. Normally the seal of confession with a priest would also be privileged.

The State of Washington put in a line that specifically exempted "members of the clergy" from not having to report privileged communications...basically blowing a 1st-amendment violation sized hole through the religious sacrament of confession.

Here's the text below.

"Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be
required to report under this section when he or she obtains
information solely as a result of a privileged communication as
provided in RCW 5.60.060"

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5375.PL.pdf?q=20250507033216

If it's a generally applicable law, sure...that's one thing. If it's a law where there are exemptions for privileged communications, then you specifically say "But not the church"... No.

[Martinned]

Wait, you're angry that Catholics don't get preferential treatment over other kinds of Christians? Or am I misunderstanding the legal text you're quoting?

[Michael P]

Yes, you misunderstand just about everything.

[Martinned]

Feel free to explain it to me then.

[Michael P]

The margin of this blog is too small to contain an explanation of everything, or even most of everything.

But for a start, you might consider that "members of the clergy" does not distinguish Catholics.

[Martinned]

No, but "confession" does, which is what Armchair was complaining about.

[Michael P]

Is the distinctive nature of Catholic priests why the law statutorily defines clergy to include rabbis and imams?

[Martinned]

Presumably the statute defines them as clergy because they are. But I'm honestly still trying to work out from the scraps that have been quoted what's going on here.

[ThePublius]

Confession is not exclusive to Catholicism.

"While not all Christian denominations practice private confession in the same way, several do, including Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches. Lutheran churches, particularly more conservative ones, often emphasize private confession as a prerequisite to communion. Some Anglicans and Episcopalians also have a private rite of confession, though it's not always a standard practice."

Plus, it doesn't have to be the sacrament of confession whereby the information is obtained, it simply states privileged communication, which occurs with ministers of virtually all faiths.

[Armchair]

Yes, you're misunderstanding.

Just for kicks, here's how they define "members of the clergy"

"(18) "Member of the clergy" means any regularly licensed, accredited, or ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly situated religious or spiritual leader of any church, religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community, or sect, or person performing official duties that are recognized as the duties of a member of the clergy under the discipline, tenets,
doctrine, or custom of the person's church, religious denomination,
religious body, spiritual community, or sect, whether acting in an
individual capacity or as an employee, agent, or official of any public or private organization or institution."

[Martinned]

And how many of these people hear confession?

[ReaderY]

Where does the statute use the word “confession?”

Armchair was simply giving an example of the kind of religious activities the statute interferes with. The statute doesn’t mention and is in no way limited to that example.

[Martinned]

Who else is he claiming should have privilege? I'm honestly asking, because I'm not aware of any other instances where conversations are privileged just because they're about religion.

[ReaderY]

You don’t know very much about religion, do you?

Any time somebody goes to a member of the clergy for counseling, or to decide or give advice about a religious question that involves personal information, privelege applies. For example, when rabbis and imams, who are clergy of religions which have a religious law structure and where clergy do things like dispute resolution and religious divorce, answer a question of religious law, mediate a dispute, or discuss a possible divorce, anything said is priveleged.

[Martinned]

That would be nuts. Why should the state of Washington exempt all conversations involving clergy from the normal operation of the law?

[Both Sides]

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, there are several "privileges" which create a right not to testify. The most famous ones involve husbands and wives (there are actually two distinct privileges that can be met for that relationship). Relevant here, there is also a privilege for (usually private) conversations with a clergy member seeking spiritual advice.

The rationale for this (and some other) evidentiary privileges is that some relationships that society values require the ability to communicate confidentially.

[ReaderY]

Same reason as for conversations between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, husbands and wives, etc. etc. etc. The basis is that people are better off seeking help and talking to people. Clergy are as much traditional helpers, and helping talkers, as doctors, lawyers, and spouses. The idea is also that the relationship is special and not to be interfered with.

You don’t know very much about religion, do you? It’s like being shocked that you can’t ban a newspaper for supporting the opposite party or that police can be sued for shooting suspects. (Nuts, isn’t it?) As part of the common law, clergy privelege has been part of our law since before the founding.

[Martinned]

You're suggesting that religion should get preferential treatment, because talking to (religious) clergy is better than talking to any other random person off the streat. That is nuts.

As part of the common law, clergy privelege has been part of our law since before the founding.

I very much doubt that. Here is the position in England, your former coloniser:

In the first place, the principle protecting confidential communications is of a very limited character. [...] There are many communications, which, though absolutely necessary because without them the ordinary business of life cannot be carried on, still are not privileged. [...] Communications made to a priest in the confessional on matters perhaps considered by the penitent to be more important than his life or his fortune, are not protected.

— Sir George Jessel MR, Wheeler v Le Marchant (1881) 17 Ch.D 681

Or:

It is evident that the rule which protects from disclosure confidential communications, between solicitor and client does not rest simply upon the confidence reposed by the client in the solicitor, for there is no such rule in other cases, in which, at least, equal confidence is reposed: in the cases, for instance, of the medical adviser and the patient, and of the clergyman and the prisoner.

Russell v. Jackson (1851) 9 Hare 391

I can go back further, but eventually we end up talking about the gunpowder plot, and about the trial in Parliament of Joanna of Navarre, widow of Henry IV.

[David Nieporent]

Well, we do things differently here, because in fact communications "of the medical adviser and the patient" are privileged.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I can go back further"

Maybe back from before 1776 and we got rid of the english.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Based on a quick peruse of Wikipedia, Priest-Penitent privilege was never part of English common law, but we picked it up slightly after the founding, perhaps from Irish common law.

[David Nieporent]

Based on a quick peruse of Wikipedia, Priest-Penitent privilege was never part of English common law, but we picked it up slightly after the founding, perhaps from Irish common law.

I find it hard to believe that it was never part of English common law; after all, at points before the Reformation, the church was entirely outside of secular law and priests probably couldn't have been compelled to testify about anything, not just the confessional. But I'd need to do a lot of refresher reading before I'd state that confidently.

Obviously Henry VIII long predated the U.S., so it's not really relevant to the doctrine's development here, which I guess came from somewhere else.

[Riva]

The point is that animus toward religion isn't a proper basis for any law, unless you're the Committee of Public Safety. This law was specifically used to attack a practice peculiar to the Catholic faith. It's an obscene offense to the law.

[Krayt]

Lawyer and doctor conversations are short-term, secular things. How dare the government impinge on confession, concerned with the status of your mortal soul for all eternity! How arrogant to dispose of that for mere short-term, worldly gain!

This is a law which impinges on the free exercise of religion, ergo is not allowed. That it calls out religion directly means they cannot hide behind the "law of general applicability" sophistry. Even if that were repaired, The People informed their government, when creating it, of the relative weighting government shall use when making such laws: 100% for our religion, 0% for power slingers mucking about with religion.

[Riva]

Not really any other faiths that recognize the sanctity of the Confessional. So, what we have here is a law that was used to target the Catholic faith. So much for your side's new infatuation with due process.

[Jerry B.]

Just can’t let it alone, can they? Be interesting when they start arresting priests for honoring the seal of the confession.

[Armchair]

They arrested priests during COVID. But mass protests through the streets for racial rights...A-OK.

https://topclassactions.com/coronavirus-covid-19/priest-files-coronavirus-shutdown-lawsuit-after-being-threatened-with-arrest/

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

They want us to forget how they deemed protesting for black trans rights was deemed ok for public health, but attending church wasn't.

[Bored Lawyer]

Stop arguing with SCIENCE!

[Commenter_XY]

Political science, that is. 😉

[Krayt]

I need to remind people, at the time there was a professor who looked at potential corona virus issues with mass protest, and reasoned it was combatting centuries-long injustice that was, cumulatively, worse than any short term pandemic problem.

Literally a scientific "So what!" to whatever medical problems mass protests might engender.

So motivated reasoning makes an appearance. Until it gets in the way for a different issue.

[Sarcastr0]

I think reasonable minds can differ between protecting confession, and going after pedophilia.

A more Armchair version of me would note which side your on, and make assumptions.

But of course everyone can see your side is grievance, not pedophiles.

[Michael P]

Do you support or oppose the bit of the law that says "no one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains information solely as a result of a privileged communication as provided in RCW 5.60.060", projecting denialist?

[Sarcastr0]

I said reasonable minds can differ. That’s as far as I’ll go off the break,

I’d need to take some time to decide where I come down, including some facts about the efficacy of such a policy. Leaning against though.

[Michael P]

You should spend more time pretending to have a reasonable mind, or thinking about privileged information, and less time screaming about how pointing out an exclusion that blatantly violates the federal Constitution is mere "grievance".

[Sarcastr0]

No, this doesn’t blatantly violate the constitution. It’s a legit policy question though.

[Michael P]

You should check how broad RCW 5.60.060 is before you make that assertion. It privileges a very large number of people, such that the exclusion of clergy here is nakedly hostile to religion.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=5.60.060

[Sarcastr0]

You stamping your foot and crying 'no fair!' does not establish 'nakedly hostile.'

[Krayt]

No, the First Amendment shows that. They can't even hide behind the sophistry of law of general applicability, because it calls out religion directly, hampering the free exercise thereof in its mission to save souls.

[Armchair]

What he means is...

Lawyer - client confidentiality...sacred.
Seal of confession... "Well, maybe...maybe not so important".

[Sarcastr0]

AC priv is much better established and on point for court proceedings than clergy penitent privilege, yes.

That’s not the same as sacred, but you aren’t here for a discussion of evidentiary policy. You just want to cry persecution facts and history bedamned.

I am here for it - advanced evidence was a banger class in law school.

[Armchair]

Freedom of religion be damned. But don't touch them attorneys....

(And no, the seal of confession is far better established than AC privilege.)

[Sarcastr0]

You're comparing an evidentiary rule with a reporting requirement.

Attorneys do have a reporting requirement in Washington State, it looks like:
"(3) Any other person who has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect may report such incident to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department as provided in RCW 26.44.040."

[Commenter_XY]

'May' (as in may report) is not compulsory.

The law is nakedly anti-Christian. The secrecy of confession is absolute.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(And no, the seal of confession is far better established than AC privilege.)"

Wikipedia says it was codified by a church council in 1215 but existed before that.

[ReaderY]

I think there’s a very straightforward constitutional challenge to the law. And I think Washington legislators were very foolish politically to have passed it, given the current political climate and claims by the right that religious people are being persecuted.

It’s a political mistake on the order of the Edmund Pettus Bridge affair. Police chiefs in a number of other Southern cities acted much more quietly, eschewed violence, didn’t attract attention to themselves, and managed to quietly stifle protest against segregation without problems right up until the Civil Rights Act started getting enforced.

These legislators are going the loud and obvious route in a time when there is increased scrutiny and skepticism of their activities and motives.

[Bored Lawyer]

Agreed this is likely to be held unconstitutional. There is a good summary here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/05/washington-state-democrats-appalling-assault-on-a-catholic-sacrament/

Although clergy-penitent privilege does not apply, there is a long list of privileges that do still apply:

attorney–client privilege;
privilege of spouses not to testify against one another;
privilege of a “peer supporter” in a support group, or a sponsor in an addiction program;
privilege of a “sexual assault advocate” or “domestic violence advocate”;
privilege of a “mental health counselor, independent clinical social worker, or marriage and family therapist” or “a physician or surgeon or osteopathic physician or surgeon or podiatric physician or surgeon”;
privilege of a union representative, unless “necessary to prevent the commission of a crime that is likely to result in a clear, imminent risk of serious physical injury or death of a person,” or after the employee has been charged;
privilege of a “public officer” for “communications made to him or her in official confidence, when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.”

Under SCOTUS' comparator cases, I can't see this being upheld. And, yes, exempting that list but not clergy demonstrates naked anti-religious bias.

[Martinned]

...or a judgment that nothing bad is going to happen if the privileges of the clergy are reduced, unlike the other examples you give.

[Josh R]

I would have to see the argument in defense of the law to be sure, but at first blush it sure seems to be unconstitutional under Lukumi. It facially targets religious practice and therefore triggers strict scrutiny (you don't even have to deal with general applicability and comparators). I highly doubt a judgment that nothing bad is going to happen if the privileges of the clergy are reduced satisfies strict scrutiny.

[Martinned]

No, it facially refuses to target religious practice.

[Josh R]

I do not know what "it facially refuses to target religious practice" means. Can you further explain.

[Martinned]

What you're asking the lawmaker to do is to single out a specific religious practice for particular protection. How much more blatant do you want your establishment clause violation?

[Josh R]

The clergy-penitent privilege is considered a permissible accommodation of religious practice.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not sure if it facially targets religion. It removes a privilege. Which ostensibly puts religion on the same footing as everyone else. Except, of course, it doesn't, since there are many other privileges it preserves.

[Josh R]

It facially states the privilege exemption does not apply to religious practice. Now perhaps the end result is the same as if the law was originally written with a list of exemptions that did not mention religious practice. But, that doesn't sound the same to me as excising out religious practice.

[Bored Lawyer]

The state does not have the luxury to make such a judgment. If child abuse is bad, then both clergy and union representatives have to report it. If you give the latter a pass, you have to give the former. That's the non-discrimination aspect of freedom of religion.

Just like during COVID you can't ban worship gatherings but allow gatherings for bowling and other entertainment.

[Martinned]

If child abuse is bad, then both clergy and union representatives have to report it.

No. If child abuse is bad, the weight you put on one side of the scale is the same in both cases, but there's still the question of what weight you place on the arguments the other way, if any.

[Bored Lawyer]

I see you do not understand what non-discrimination means. The state does not have the Constitutional authority to decide that communicating with your clergy is less valuable than communicating with your union representative.

[Josh R]

I think that is mostly right.

If I am wrong about this law facially targeting religious practice, the comparator analysis would then apply, which ought to be based on whether the government's interest in preventing child abuse is the same for the clergy and unions. I can't see a difference, in which case strict scrutiny applies. The state might nonetheless win by meeting its strict scrutiny burden based on the "other side of the scale."

[Josh R]

For another opinion, consider what Eugene wrote in his amicus brief in Fulton:

consider the duty to testify when subpoenaed, and the many testimonial privileges that constitute exceptions to the duty. [...] These exceptions reflect value judgments in favor of protecting certain secular interests, such as the interests in protecting spousal confidences, trade secrets, doctor-patient communications, and the like (as well as the narrow religious interest in protecting clergy-penitent communications). These judgments stem from their own complicated mixes of normative decisions, practical estimations. and tradition. And the presence of those secular value judgments should not constitutionally obligate a state to provide a similar religious privilege to anyone who, for instance, feels a religious obligation not to testify against a parent or child or against a coreligionist.

To be sure, Eugene recognized the clergy exception. But if it did not exist, he would argue the Free Exercise does not require it. In short, he does not like the most-favored nation standard because you need a way to determine whether a secular exemption is comparable to a religious one and ...

the courts have no principled way of determining when the differences are great enough to justify different treatment.

On the other hand, he wrote this prior to Tandon which established the most-favored nation standard (although in the shadow docket, it left a lot to be desired on how to apply it).

[Sarcastr0]

Despite Bored's claim, this is not unconstitutional.

He's describing a "most favored nation" analysis. There's some scholarship, but the Supreme Court has not adopted this analysis.

[Josh R]

They did in Tandon v. Newsom

[Sarcastr0]

Welp, looks like I was behind the times.

Thanks for the opinion, shadowy thought it was!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I believe that the Catholic hierarchy agreed to that as a means to address the perping priest problem.

[ThePublius]

"The Catholic Church has announced that priests in Washington state will face excommunication if they comply with a new law requiring them to report child abuse confessions to authorities. The law, signed by Governor Bob Ferguson on Friday (May 2), mandates clergy to report child abuse or neglect, without exceptions for confessions made during the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

The Archdiocese of Seattle emphasized that priests are bound by the seal of confession, which prohibits them from disclosing any information learned during confessions. "Catholic clergy may not violate the seal of confession — or they will be excommunicated from the Church," the Archdiocese stated. The Church supports protecting children and preventing abuse but insists that the confidentiality of confessions must remain intact."

https://wrko.iheart.com/content/2025-05-07-catholic-church-warns-priests-will-be-excommunicated-for-following-new-law/

[not guilty]

If a priest fails to report a penitent's disclosure of child abuse, that will be exceedingly difficult to detect and prosecute. The priest has a constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, as does the abuser. Neither has any reason to waive that privilege. A prosecutor is highly unlikely to grant immunity to either.

[David Nieporent]

There are still scenarios where it could happen. E.g., someone is caught, prosecuted, pleads guilty. In the course of the prosecution, he mentions to investigators that he told his priest about it last year. Some vindictive prosecutor chooses to make an example of the priest pour encourager les autres.

[shawn_dude]

Let me see if I'm understanding the basic hypocrisy here:

1> Trans people are an assumed risk to children so do everything we can to drive them from public life.

2> Religious leaders that protect pedophiles, most often in leadership positions themselves, are unfairly attacked by anti-religion liberals.

Then there's the whole "pro-life, but only until they're born and then who gives a shit if they starve" thing conservatives preach. It's a trend where they use children as a propaganda tool but don't really care one school lunch penny about their actual welfare.

[Michael P]

https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2025/05/06/former-secretary-of-state-fagan-seeks-to-settle-with-the-ethics-commission/

It sure must be tough for Democrats elected to state office to have their blatantly illegal side jobs and conflicts of interest settle for wrist slaps at the state level and dropped investigations by Biden's lame duck phase. (That article's "late 2024" date for the feds closing the investigation means December.)

[Martinned]

Hang on, are side jobs illegal in the US? I can never tell...

[Sarcastr0]

Wanking about this when Musk is right there.

lol.

[Ska]

Does it cease to be whataboutism if you start the sentence with wanking?

[Bob from Ohio]

He is an expert on wanking.

[jb]

Sorry, was there more than one Democrat mentioned in this story? Confused about how you think this generalizes beyond this one random person.

[Armchair]

Biden's weaponization of the FBI....

This is actually really concerning.

"For decades, FBI agents have been required to meet stringent requirements for opening criminal and national security investigations known as a "predicate." The predicate for a full investigation required "an articulable factual basis" that "reasonably indicates" a crime or national security threat has or is about to occur, according to the Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations."

But under Biden, that stringent requirement was dropped

"The Biden administration authorized federal law enforcement four years ago to target Americans engaged in "concerning non-criminal behavior" in the name of fighting domestic terrorism, with a specific eye on those serving in the military, owning firearms, or spreading what officials considered to be "xenophobic" disinformation, according to newly declassified documents."

No more need for those requirements involving actual criminality or national security. Now, just "concerning" behavior became a warrant to order FBI investigations under Biden. And we know who the FBI considered "concerning"

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/declassified-biden-admin-domestic-terror-memo-authorized-agencies

[Sarcastr0]

You sure do seem concerned!

[Armchair]

You don't seem to be concerned by this police-state like behavior, where the FBI/KGB targets people for "concerning" behavior, rather than having evidence of actual criminality.

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

He only cares for illegals and other Democrats. Not citizens or humans.

[David Nieporent]

You don't seem to be concerned by this police-state like behavior, where the FBI/KGB targets people for "concerning" behavior, rather than having evidence of actual criminality.

Well, that's because — see my comment below — it's a lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

And you sure seem to be unconcerned. Do you want to say right out that you consider this to be unproblematic?

Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism

Look, when the Betsy Ross flag is a basis for FBI investigations, but Antifa flags aren't, when you're infiltrating the Catholic church, but not Jane's Revenge, there's a problem of political bias, even on top of the domestic spying issue.

[Michael P]

Another example of political bias is when they investigate parents who complain to school boards but not NGO finances.

[bernard11]

Did you read the memo, or are you swallowing John Solomon's characterization, as regurgitated by Armchair?

I didn't see anything about Betsy Ross, or any reference to flags in there.

[David Nieporent]

There is no substitute for reading original sources… and for not reading disgraced ex-journalist John Solomon. Because reading the actual source shows that it doesn't say anything at all like what he claimed. It doesn't say anything at all about "target[ing] Americans engaged in 'concerning non-criminal behavior.'"

Setting aside that this document is not an FBI or DOJ document at all — and that Trump's people were so desperate to get this out that they incompetently redacted it — the only mention of "non-criminal behavior" is in a section entitled: "Intended Impact 2.1.1: The U.S. Government improves the visibility and accessibility of Federal resources related to DT prevention."

The actual mention of those words is:

Action 2.1.1c: Enhance public understanding of the role of Federal law enforcement in responding to incidents of concerning non-criminal behavior, as well the role of mental health professionals and resources in crisis response, including through public messaging and engagement. (Lead: DOJ and FBI with DBS)

(Emphasis added.) Nothing at all about opening investigations or targeting anyone for that.

[Brett Bellmore]

The FBI, being a law enforcement agency, basically shouldn't be responding to incidents of concerning non-criminal behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

I've got very bad news for you about how America uses it's law enforcement.

You're actually espousing one of the better defund the police arguments.

[David Nieporent]

The FBI, being a law enforcement agency, basically shouldn't be responding to incidents of concerning non-criminal behavior.

Really? So if there's a pro-Hamas march in NY featuring thousands of people chanting "Death to America," you think the FBI should just shrug and say, "That's protected speech [which it is], so nothing for us to be concerned about. We're not going to pay any attention to the organizers."

How about if someone here on a temporary visa wants to take flight lessons, but says, "I only want to learn to take off; I don't need to learn to land." That's non-criminal behavior, so no reason for the FBI to take notice, right?

[Armchair]

"a national security threat has or is about to occur"

[David Nieporent]

A threat "is about to occur" is exactly the "concerning non-criminal behavior" that Brett just said he thinks shouldn't be within the purview of the FBI.

[Armchair]

Not exactly.

[Brett Bellmore]

" So if there's a pro-Hamas march in NY featuring thousands of people chanting "Death to America," you think the FBI should just shrug and say, "That's protected speech [which it is], so nothing for us to be concerned about. We're not going to pay any attention to the organizers.""

I think shouting death threats crosses the line into criminal behavior, or at least is close enough to the line to justify looking at it to make sure. This is pretty different from infiltrating churches because you suspect that they might go too far in opposing abortion.

At least until the pastor starts preaching "Death to Abortionists!" to the congregation, anyway.

[Martinned]

This is pretty different from infiltrating churches because you suspect that they might go too far in opposing abortion.

Well yes, because Hamas are muslims and churches are for Christians.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, because "Death to X" regardless of who is shouting it or where, (I mean, outside a theatrical production, of course!) is enough cause to draw law enforcement's attention.

[David Nieporent]

is enough cause to draw law enforcement's attention.

Right! Because it's — say it with me now — "concerning non-criminal behavior."

[Brett Bellmore]

Because death threats facially look like criminal behavior, and actually CAN be criminal behavior depending on factors you'll only discover after further examination.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't describe any death threats. "Death to America" is not a death threat and is 1,000% protected speech.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Death to America" is nothing but a death threat. What you're arguing is that it's not a threat of imminent unlawful action.

But that's exactly what the inquiry is needed to confirm.

[David Nieporent]

No, that's not what I'm arguing. You're applying the wrong test; "imminent unlawful action" is the test for incitement, not for threats.

And thus, even your attempted pedantry fails. America isn't alive, so one can't kill it, so it can't be a death threat. (Now, death to Americans could theoretically be a death threat.)

[Sarcastr0]

I think shouting death threats crosses the line into criminal behavior, or at least is close enough to the line to justify looking at it to make sure.

You cited Brandenberg enough about Jan 06, you should know better than this.

[Martinned]

In fairness, I think Brett has a point insofar as the bar for investigating something isn't the same as the bar for it ultimately being protected speech. The means of investigation used have to recognise that the speech in question may well be constitutionally protected, but finding out whether it really is, is exactly the point of the investigation.

[Sarcastr0]

He'd have a point if he wasn't arguing the thesis "The FBI, being a law enforcement agency, basically shouldn't be responding to incidents of concerning non-criminal behavior."

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps it would be better to say, "The FBI, being a nominally non-partisan law enforcement agency, basically shouldn't be treating non-criminal behavior as "concerning" on the basis of disliking its politics."?

[David Nieporent]

It would be better to say that. And perfectly fair, too. And utterly unrelated to this discussion.

[Sarcastr0]

It's also kind of pre-loading a conspiracy theory, but I suppose that goes without saying these days.

[David Nieporent]

I think shouting death threats crosses the line into criminal behavior,

Of course it does. But what I just described does not come anywhere near that line.

This is pretty different from infiltrating churches because you suspect that they might go too far in opposing abortion.

Good news! This smoking gun document that Solomon wrote about without reading does not even hint at any such thing.

(I note you don't mention "infiltrating mosques because you suspect they may go too far in opposing middle east policy.")

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you needed the actions that proceeded from this strategic plan to see that there was a gun, and it was smoking. This is more like the purchase receipt for the gun, linking it to the administration that pulled the trigger.

[ReaderY]

You do realize that mobsters regularly make similar complaints anout FBI surveillance of ordinary social clubs and all the anti-Italian discrimination.

This type of complaint is practically paraphrasing the Sopranos.

[Moderation4ever]

The date for having a Real ID for domestic flying had come and gone and the Administration says you can still fly even without it. So, I am guessing the requirement will likely never actually be enacted.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, its only been twenty years since Congress passed the law requiring it. These things take time. It will probably really, really go into effect when California completes that high speed rail project (which would be never).

[Ska]

Good luck with that.

As of Monday TSA was telling everyone at the airport to have their real ID or passport after today.

[Michael P]

“Those who are not Real ID compliant ... may be subjected to enhanced screening at the check point above and beyond what they would normal go through.”

https://www.nj.com/news/2025/05/tsa-reverses-course-will-now-let-people-fly-without-real-ids-but-theres-a-catch.html

[Ska]

And again, good luck with that. When the choice is a) bring a passport and arrive two hours before your flight, go through security or b) show up X hours before the flight, be subjected to "enhanced screening" and hope X was enough... like I said good luck with that.

I'd be much happier with "fuck this real ID bullshit" being the actual policy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" TSA officials at Newark Airport echoed that message.

Would that be the same Newark Airport that is considered too unsafe for a major airline to fly into anymore?

[ReaderY]

Wanted to talk about the Trump administration’s brief supporting the FDA in Missouri v. FDA, a case where Missouri is challenging the FDA approval of abortifacient mifepristone in a lawsuit similar to that (perhaps a successor to) the AHM v. FDA case, with the idea that Missouri has a better chance of getting standing.

Politically, I had expected the Trump administration not to defend the FDA, and am surprised that it did, even though the brief focuses rather narrowly on standing and venue.

On the legal merits, I think that Missouri’s case is as much a complete loser as AHM’s case was. On venue, I think Missouri has no business litigating in the Northern District of Texas. There is no connection between the case and Texas. If Missouri wants to sue the federal government, it needs to sue in Missouri federal court.

Although I think Missouri passes standing at the preliminary stage, it ultimately loses on the merits. I agree with the District Court opinion in the West Virginia case now known as GenBioPro v. Raynes, that there is no conflict between federal and state law on this issue. The FD&C Act has a special and unusual anti-preemption clause reserving to the states all powers not specifically enumerated, including the right to regulate medicine. The District Court, characterizing West Virginia’s abortion law as a kind of morals law, interpreted the anti-preemption clause to mean that the FD&C Act addresses only the efficacy and safety of drugs, leaving it to the states to address all other questions about them, including their morality or lack thereof.

I think that, given the strong wording of the anyi-preemption clause, this decision was sound. Since federal law does not in fact preempt state abortion law, Missouri’s basis for claiming to be injured by the FDA’s approval, founded on the premise that federal law preempts Missouri’s law, necessarily fails.

I think Missouri’s legal strategy, in addition to being incorrect, is very unwise. I would think in general, a state that wants to enforce its laws would have an interest in arguing against federal preemption. Moreover, Missouri’s merits case, which basically regurgitates AHM’s arguments, stinks. AHM’s arguments that mifepristone is fundamentally unsafe for adult women and that the FDA did not properly consider benefit/risk are based on junk science and other extremely dubious evidence. They would fail even if courts owed no deference to the FDA’s factual determinatiojs, which they do.

A consequence of Missouri’s argument that federal law preempts its own state law is that if Missouri wins on preemption but loses on the merits, the result is Missouri won’t be able to enforce its laws. Given the weakness of merits case and the fact that while I agree with the GenBioPro decision regarding preemption very, the question is disputable, Missouri could well end up making an own goal, arguing itself into an outcome that is the opposite of what it claims to want.

That seems a very poor legal strategy. The lack of legal as disctinct from political strategic thinking is striking.

The Trump Administration gets to argue, in opposing Missouri, that Missouri has no interest in the case because federal law does not preempt state abortion laws. That may be the point it really wants to make in defending the FDA in this case.

[Zarniwoop]

Wanted to talk about the Trump administration’s brief supporting the FDA in Missouri v. FDA

Oh hey, thanks for pointing out the case progress! Docket is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65768749/alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-v-us-food-and-drug-administration/?page=2 and the gov't brief if Dkt.#247

Politically, I had expected the Trump administration not to defend the FDA, and am surprised that it did, even though the brief focuses rather narrowly on standing and venue.

Concur. But it's never too late for the Administration to fire an attorney for competently asserting correct legal arguments.

But I agree that the venue argument Missouri makes is loser. With the Feds now taking that position, I'll bet a tasty beverage of choice that even Kacsmaryk grants the MotD ... getting reversed twice in the same case for getting black-letter law wrong is not a good look.

Moreover, Missouri’s merits case, which basically regurgitates AHM’s arguments, stinks. AHM’s arguments that mifepristone is fundamentally unsafe for adult women and that the FDA did not properly consider benefit/risk are based on junk science and other extremely dubious evidence. They would fail even if courts owed no deference to the FDA’s factual determinatiojs, which they do.

I strongly agree. But that's exactly why Missouri et al. are fighting so hard to stay in TX, and thus in front of Kacsmaryk: on the merits, he's already demonstrated that he finds the junk is more credible than the science.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"10.9 percent of women suffered sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or other serious complications within 45 days of a chemical abortion."

https://thefederalist.com/2025/05/06/exclusive-see-the-airtight-methodology-showing-11-of-pill-abortions-cause-maternal-injury/

[Zarniwoop]

The stats on literally tens of millions of women that have taken mifepristone in many different countries disagree.

But "we analyzed insurance reports and invented data" from result-oriented folks seem like the sort of stuff you'd swallow.

Publish actual data, not an editorial in TheFederalist.

Weak, Grampa, weak.

[Armchair]

Something to consider...time lapse maps in Ukraine. January versus March versus May.

https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Assessed%20Control%20of%20Terrain%20in%20Luhansk%20Oblast%20January%2006%2C%202025.png

https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Luhansk%20Oblast%20March%2006%2C%202025.png

https://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Luhansk%20Oblast%20May%206%2C%202025.png

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

In an announcement that will surprise no one:

>newly released memo from June 2021 shows the Biden administration authorized federal law enforcement to target Americans engaged in “concerning non-criminal behavior.” According to declassified documents, Biden officials directed law enforcement to investigate individuals such as active-duty servicemen, gun owners, and people deemed to be spreading “disinformation.”

https://justthenews.com/videos/breaking-biden-admin-ordered-federal-law-enforcement-target-non-criminal-conservatives

Now, get this. Compare what the Sarcastr0s, and Democrats are doing, the ginned up moral panics, and these Federal Judges are doing for illegals against what they were doing against ACTUAL CITIZENS just a few years ago.

Democrats & Sarcastr0s were targeting, unconstitutional, US CITIZENS. Federal Judges, ESPECIALLY Roberts was completely silent. The Media completely silent.

You can't hate Democrats and Sarcastr0s enough.

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

Echoing the judicial election manipulations of the 2020 election:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-orders-nc-certify-supreme-court-election-results-democrat-leading

A Federal Judge just ordered, over the State's Supreme Court, that they Democrat should be allowed to steal the election because cleaning up fraudulent votes "six months after the election would damage due process".

So now Democrats can just still any election in this judges district and just delay for six months, then their theft gets locked in.

[Glaucomatose]

A conservative judge telling a state that they can’t change the rules of an election after it’s been held and disenfranchise voters who cast votes according to the law in place at the time is now Democrats stealing an election.

The mind boggles.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Republicans here in North Carolina are entirely without shame. They will do literally anything to keep their gerrymandered power.

[ReaderY]

Excuse me, but this was an election won fairly and squarely by the Democrat that republican state judges attempted to steal from the winner through the usual Trunpian lawfare complaining that any slight inperfection in a ballot completely invalidates it. The state judges, after a long delay, had required the falsely disputed Democratic voters to redo their votes in order to count them; Republican votes with similar defects were of course not disputed.

Yes this was a violation of principles of fundamental fairness in elections. And a gross and obvious one, tipping the scales towards Republicans in an obvious way. When voters for the democratic candidate have to redo their votes but voters for the republican candidate don’t, let’s just say that that’s a problem.

I understand there are people on this forum who say that people are fully entitled to selectively sue about the problems that injure them and ignore the ones that don’t, and judges have to stick within their choice and can’t do anything about it,l. But that just ain’t so.

Nobody ever claimed in court that any of the disputed votes were fraudulent. And for good reason. The lawyers knew they were subject to perjury if they tried to do that. They argued only that there were minor technical defects. Indeed the state-court remedy you are defending as fair - having the voters involved redo the disputed votes correctly - would make no sense at all if they weren’t real votes by real voters.

I think that’s telling. Your claim the disputed votes were “frraudulent” was simply pulled out of your ass. And you pull it out of your ass because you know there are no consequences for lying here.

[Michael P]

At least one segment of the voters are ones who are statutorily ineligible to vote in that election (US citizens born outside the US who have never lived in NC). Others never established their eligibility according to statute -- Democrat officials just put them on the rolls without the required evidence. That's why the ballots needed to be validated.

[Sarcastr0]

Democrat officials

Ahh yeah that's the stuff.

[Glaucomatose]

Actually, those voters were statutorily eligible to vote. Per the decision:

For over a decade prior to the 2024 election, a state law granted Never Residents the right to vote, and they had voted under that statute in over 40 consecutive elections. But North Carolina's Constitution includes a bona fide residency requirement for voters.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court subsequently determined that the law granting Never Residents the right to vote conflicted with the bona fide residency provision in the state Constitution and was void.

In other words, those voters cast their votes according to long-established rules set by statute, but a court decided after the votes were cast that the statute conflicted with the state constitution and threw those votes out after the fact.

And your second statement is just wrong. Overseas voters were exempted (long before the election, by the state board of elections) from a requirement to provide photo ID at the time they cast their ballots, in large part because there's no real way for them to do so. Those voters also cast their ballots according to the existing rules. The state court subsequently decided that those rules contradicted the statute, and threw out the ballots of overseas voters unless they could subsequently provide photo ID - but only in a handful of Democratic-leaning counties, while overseas voters registered in other counties were subject to no such requirement, and their votes still counted.

Unless you're going to ask people to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar, I can't think of many more obviously unconstitutional ways to steal an election after it's already been held.

[Kazinski]

It was a law that was never valid, but had not been challenged.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue is the remedy.

"The state judges, after a long delay, had required the falsely disputed Democratic voters to redo their votes in order to count them; Republican votes with similar defects were of course not disputed."

[Bob from Ohio]

"court decided after the votes were cast that the statute conflicted with the state constitution and threw those votes out after the fact."

Oh, judicial review is bad now.

[Glaucomatose]

Judicial review is great. All elections going forward will be held under the new rules as decided by the court (unless the legislature implements new rules).

[Bob from Ohio]

"people on this forum who say that people are fully entitled to selectively sue about the problems that injure them and ignore the ones that don’t,"

That would be the Gore supporters here who defend the initial cherry picking of counties to contest.

[jb]

What did you think about the Supreme Court's rationale in Bush v. Gore?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ask me about it 24 years ago...

[Michael P]

Thanks, Trump (and Israel):

The Foreign Ministry of Oman says it has brokered a ceasefire agreement between the United States and Ansar Allah (Houthis)

https://x.com/yashar/status/1919817370664661250

[Mr. Bumble]

IDF Destroys Airport Used for Weapons Shipments in Devastating Strike on Houthis
President Donald Trump announced shortly after the operation that the U.S. and Houthis had reached a ceasefire involving an agreement that the terrorist group will no longer attack commercial ships and American assets
https://freebeacon.com/israel/idf-destroys-airport-used-for-weapons-shipments-in-devastating-strike-on-houthis/

[Martinned]

Sure... "devastating"...

[Martinned]

What are we supposed to be thanking Trump for? That he illegally started an unwinnable war in the Middle East and has now surrendered?

[Michael P]

You continue to get everything wrong.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/biden-administration-faces-growing-pressure-strike-back-houthis/story?id=106268715

[Martinned]

Oh yes, the Biden administration, the first Trump administration, and the Obama administration also occasionally droped bombs on Yemen. It's a convenient place for gung ho foreign policy people to stir up trouble because they can be confident that nobody back home will notice or care.

[Mr. Bumble]

Once again WTF. Which "war" is that?

[Martinned]

The bombing of Yemen. Or do you not thing that throwing that many bombs on a country isn't a war?

[Don Nico]

Congress did not proclaim it to be. Still Mr Obama presumed it to be a war to order extra-judical killings of US cotizens

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

True, as did Trump. It was his first killing of a U.S. citizen, in fact.

[Don Nico]

"illegally started an unwinnable war in the Middle East"
What are you talking about?

[David Nieporent]

You're thanking Trump for stopping a war he started?

[Mr. Bumble]

As above, which "war" was that?

[Michael P]

Trump had magical time-travel powers to force the Houthis to attack all variety of civilian ships during the Autopen's presidency, of course.

[Martinned]

...and Biden was magically still President in March, when the US started its attack on Yemen.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-launches-strikes-against-yemens-houthis-warns-iran-2025-03-15/

I mean, I know that you guys like to blame Biden for everything bad that's happening today, including laws that Trump himself signed, but this is ridiculous.

[Kazinski]

Who shot first and when?

[ducksalad]

US drone strike, Obama administration, 2011. It's been on and off, directly or through proxies, since then.

[Kazinski]

I think you are confused, that was a drone strike in Yemen, but it didn't target Houthis, who are Iranian backed Shia, but an Sunni Yemeni American al Qaeda Imam.

According to this timeline the first US attacks on the Houthis was Jan 2024, after they started shooting missiles at ships transiting the Red Sea.

"The US and Britain carry out air and missile strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, supported by Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands. The strikes targeted the capital Sana’a, Sa’ada, Hajjah, Hudayadh, and Taiz governorates. The Pentagon says 60 targets were hit using more than 150 precision-guided munitions. "These targeted strikes are a clear message that the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks on our personnel or allow hostile actors to imperil freedom of navigation," US President Joe Biden said."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uk-us-airstrikes-houthis-gaza-b2479242.html

[Michael P]

Didn't we end "don't ask, don't tell"?

The authors report that "top White House aides debated having [Biden] undergo a cognitive test to prove his fitness for a second term but ultimately decided against the move," according to a report on the book in the New York Times.

http://jewishworldreview.com/0525/york050725.php

(It can finally be admitted that all the gaslighting that the left denied was gaslighting was, in fact, gaslighting.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Which they still deny.

[SRG2]

And now I can deliver the sacrament of Whataboutism wrt Trump's physical and mental health, of course. As we know the physical reports can't be true, there's no reason to trust the cognitive ones.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Stone Bridge High School in Loudoun County, who recently covered up the rape of a girl in one of their girls' rooms by a boy in a skirt because they were concerned it might interfere with their proposed policy allowing boys in girls rooms, is investigating boys for saying that they didn't feel comfortable with a girl in the locker room.

[Ed Grinberg]

Hey, in England they'd already be in prison.

[Martinned]

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not correct:

[India and Pakistan] have been fighting for a long time. They’ve been fighting for many, many decades and centuries.

[Ajsloss]

Two family law attorneys in Ohio have introduced a bill, written by domestic court judges, that will "replace the concepts of 'parental rights and responsibilities' with 'parenting responsibilities'... and repeals the concepts of shared parenting and sole custody." In other words: when you divorce, your children become property of the state, and the government will tell you what your responsibilities are.

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/download?key=25108

[TwelveInchPianist]

Trump can't arrest judges fast enough.

[Sarcastr0]

Wait what?

[Martinned]

The Rt Hon the Lord Terence Etherton GBE KC PC, Master of the Rolls between 2016 and 2021 and (in that capacity) one of the victims of the infamous "Enemies of the People" headline has sadly passed away. I will note that he was Jewish, because I know that otherwise his passing will be commented on with nothing but abuse on this blog. Why, after all, would we say something nice about a kind and wise judge, on the occasion of his death?

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/terry-etherton

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I may have mentioned this already but a discussion of the ongoing selection of the new pope made me remember this:

"Raffaella Petrini Becomes Governor of Vatican City"

to be exact, “President of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State, and President of the Governorate of the Vatican City State.”

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2025/02/15/woman-governor-vatican-city-249941

also: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/05/election-of-the-day-vatican-city

[Martinned]

Remember, the Holy See and Vatican City are distinct entities. Vatican City is (arguably) a state, but it is governed by the Holy See, which has international legal personality independently from the Vatican. Traditionally the Holy See and the Order of Malta are the two examples given of entities that have international legal personality that is not based in statehood or some kind of treaty. (I.e. international organisations like the UN have international legal personality because their founding treaty says so.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Vatican City is (arguably) a state

Darn. Is Canada next? /snark

[Martinned]

If I had to argue against the statehood of Vatican City, I would say that it doesn't have a sovereign government of its own, because it is governed by the Holy See. But that's pretty formalistic.

[not guilty]

During my memory we have had a Pope John, a Pope Paul, two Pope John Pauls, and the given name of the most recent pope was Jorge, the Spanish equivalent of George. Am I the only one now hoping for a Pope Ringo?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, you're the only one. 🙂

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One day after arguments, the Second Circuit panel unanimously rejected the government's arguments and ordered that Rumeysa Ozturk be transferred to Vermont no later than May 14.

https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a048f161-71de-43a5-917b-b38c24a0db8e/1/doc/25-1019_opn.pdf

"Rümeysa Öztürk is a graduate student who had, until recently, been living in Massachusetts lawfully on a student visa. On March 25, 2025, six plainclothes law enforcement officers arrested Öztürk near her home without warning and drove her away in an unmarked car. Unaware of her location and unable to contact their client, Öztürk’s counsel brought a habeas petition in the District of Massachusetts."

[Zarniwoop]

That didn't take long at all! https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/71f184bf-df87-4656-a352-5cf664fdb0e2/1/doc/25-1019_opn.pdf

Practice tip: when a Federal judge asks a question and then asks again, refusing to provide an answer means you'll probably lose on that issue:

When the appeals panel attempted to wade into the First Amendment issues at the heart of the challenges, Deputy Attorney General Drew Ensign sidestepped the questions.

“Does the government contest that the speech in both cases was protected speech?” asked U.S. Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr., an appointee of former President George W. Bush.

“Your Honor, we haven’t — we have not taken a position on that,” Ensign responded. “Our position is that the jurisdictional bars prevent adjudication of that.”

“Help my thinking along: Take a position,” Parker pressed.

Ensign declined again, telling the judge, “I don’t have authority to take a position on that right now.”

I wonder if Attorney Ensign is getting tired of being used as cannon fodder by the DOJ.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5285302-appeals-court-trump-rumeysa-ozturk-moshen-mahdawi-columbia-tufts/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ensigns are low-ranking officers, so they are potential cannon fodder.

[jb]

Also interesting that Ensign says he's not authorized to take a position on that. Given that the administration is firing attorneys for taking (factually correct) positions that Trump later decides he doesn't like, it's probably no surprise that everyone at the DOJ is now in CYA mode. But this means we're likely to expect a lot more response like this, and a lot more examples of the courts just deciding that the government loses if its not willing to take a position on important topics.

[David Nieporent]

Practice tip: when a Federal judge asks a question and then asks again, refusing to provide an answer means you'll probably lose on that issue:

That's not the only issue where the government stonewalled; they also tried to argue that she had sued the wrong person, but refused to tell the court who the right person was. Not surprisingly, the government lost on that point as well.

[Zarniwoop]

Yep. The entire discussion dismembering the Gov't's "venue is improper because we hid the ball, and we still want to hide the ball" style argument (pp. 8-18) is worth a read.

It also provides a great road map for future detainees that ICE tries to hide while they shuffle them to a more difficult and punitive location.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Darn Trump lawfare.

[Zarniwoop]

Having now read the opinion, it reads to me like another court has stopped giving gov't attorneys a presumption of regularity, in part because of ongoing, over-cute efforts by ICE to play Three Card Prisoner Monte:

Any confusion about where habeas jurisdiction resides arises from the government’s conduct during the twenty-four hours following Öztürk’s arrest. Öztürk was arrested near her residence in Somerville, Massachusetts, at about 5:25pm on March 25, 2025.

Opinion, p.9, and

Here, the government did not disclose to Öztürk’s counsel where, or by whom, she was being detained and did not allow Öztürk to contact counsel or convey her whereabouts to anyone until almost twenty-four hours after her arrest. Indeed, the government concedes that it withheld this information intentionally.

Opinion, p. 14; emphasis in original.

FAFO, folks.

[Bob from Ohio]

"plainclothes law enforcement officers arrested Öztürk near her home without warning and drove her away in an unmarked car

"plainclothes" "without warning" "unmarked car"

No bias in their choice of words!

[shawn_dude]

"No bias in their choice of facts!" FTFY.

"Here, the government did not disclose to Öztürk’s counsel where, or by whom, she was being detained and did not allow Öztürk to contact counsel or convey her whereabouts to anyone until almost twenty-four hours after her arrest. Indeed, the government concedes that it withheld this information intentionally."

As quoted by Zarniwoop, just a few inches upthread.

So the opinion notes that the government intentionally obscured which agency had arrested her. This is why "plainclothes," "without warning," and "unmarked car" are relevant.

[Michael P]

Destroying the rule of law is a choice.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2025/05/05/michigan-attorney-general-dana-nessel-drops-all-charges-university-michigan-diag-protesters/83452242007/

[Zarniwoop]

Is that like "destroying" the "rule of law" by pardoning people actually convicted of actually beating up police officers?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To reference something covered in a thread:

"Washington State Makes Clergy Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse With No Exceptions for Privileged Information"

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/05/washington-state-makes-clergy-mandatory.html

One bit: "In a statement (full text) issued May 4, the Archbishop of Seattle said that any priest who violates the seal of Confession in order to comply with the new law will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church."

Sounds harsh. One strike and you are out? Not very forgiving.

The statement notes: "Our policies already require priests to be mandatory reporters, but not if this information is obtained during confession."

Yes, Pam Bondi is on the case:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-first-amendment-investigation-washington-states-new-anti

[Don Nico]

Joe,
That is the rule and has been so for centuries.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I read the letter. I saw the rule. I think it's harsh, like some other things some religions believe.

[David Nieporent]

How many deliberate breaches of A/C privilege by a lawyer do you think it would take for the lawyer to get disbarred?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They still could somehow work in the legal community.

This rule "excommunicated from the Catholic Church" completely.

Also, the Church is somewhat more forgiving about things.

[Commenter_XY]

Says who? = the Church is somewhat more forgiving about things

[shawn_dude]

So the Catholic church is indicating they still intend on protecting pedophiles.

[David Nieporent]

That's a cheap shot.

[TJJ2000]

Will the USA ever again honor the Supreme Law of the Land (US Constitution) that is the very definition as-to what the USA is.

Or will it slowly wither away into another Socialist nightmare.

[Sarcastr0]

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be.

Why do we neglect the big 'no socialisms' clause!!

[TJJ2000]

Your spelled out "no socialism" clause .....
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Well, that comment started well.

[dwb68]

Dave Portnoy discovers you can't show grace to antisemites. Now, one of the perpetrators, Mo Khan, is claiming victim status, with a funding landing page, and his free trip to Poland has been rescinded.

"I talked to [Khan] on the phone with his buddy and they both owned up to it and cried about it. He then lawyered up after speaking with his family," Portnoy wrote. "His name got out because he’s a moron and uploaded ‘f--- the Jews’ sign to his Instagram before I even knew about it. He already went viral without me. He spreads hate and uses the conflict in Middle East as his excuse. And did it in a bar with my (company’s) name on it. "

You simply can't give quarter to terrorists.

[Sarcastr0]

Antisemites suck, but we quarter them even in this commentariat. And they do get due process.
Assholes can be victims, despite the right rolling 'he's no angel' over and over again.

What exactly are you calling terrorism?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're acting as though words have specific meanings or something...

[Sarcastr0]

On this Forum we believe:

-Facilitate means don't do anything
-Invasion, emergency, and war mean whatever the President says the mean
-Communist just means something I don't like. So does Marxist, Maoist, Socialist.
-The Constitution instantiates Gordon Gekko's social statistics.

[apedad]

Justices snub call for cameras on birthright citizenship hearing

On Wednesday, C-SPAN released a letter sent to Chief Justice John Roberts requesting permission to bring cameras into the courtroom so the millions of Americans who will be affected by the ruling can witness the oral argument session. C-SPAN said that because the case holds profound national significance, the public interest would be best served through live television coverage of the proceedings.

“The public deserves to witness — fully and directly — how such a consequential issue is argued before the highest court in the land,” Sam Feist, C-SPAN’s CEO, wrote in the letter dated April 23.

After two weeks, C-SPAN said its request has gone unanswered.

https://www.courthousenews.com/justices-snub-call-for-cameras-on-birthright-citizenship-hearing/

While I realize many Americans are at one time or another highly interested in the Court's proceedings, I'm not fully convinced cameras should be allowed.

The screeching - yes from both sides - is already loud enough and can you imagine the gnashing of teeth if a Justice was to stifle a yawn or roll their eyes, or whatever non-verbals people normally do?

And Prof. Blackman would have all that non-verbal fodder to fulminate about.

Maybe let's just stick to reading the decisions.

[M L]

“If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Think again. If you break our laws by entering this [country] without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship — a guarantee of full access to public and social services that this society provides. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of babies born at taxpayer expense at county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?"

- Harry Reid

[David Nieporent]

"So the word is out that [Romney] has not paid any taxes for ten years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not."

- Harry Reid.

[rloquitur]

You are insufferable. Romney was too much of a wuss to fight back against Harry Reid.

[David Nieporent]

Whoosh!

The point is that Harry Reid said lots of dumb stuff. Don't know why you think his views of birthright citizenship are any more interesting than his views of Romney's finances.

[rloquitur]

I don't think Reid's views are interesting at all. Homer nods on the other point.

[Brett Bellmore]

That wasn't dumb. It was a calculated lie, and as he said afterwards when confronted about it, it worked.

[Sarcastr0]

You're mad about politicians telling lies now?

I thought it didn't matter; they all do it. That's what you've said whenever Trump's dishonesty comes up.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was just clarifying that it wasn't "dumb", which suggests that Reid might have simply made an honest mistake.

Reid wasn't being dumb, he was being unscrupulous.

[Frank Drackman]

and got his ass kicked by a Treadmill (Yeah, right, I know a Mob Beatdown when I see one)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Um, the child isn't an illegal alien.

[M L]

? I think he was saying we reward illegal immigration by giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I think he was trying to say that. He failed.

[shawn_dude]

The child is the one who receives the "reward." Can't get any more pro-life than that! amirite?!

[Zarniwoop]

Meh, I'm not sure the upcoming argument is the hill to die on regarding cameras in the S.Ct.

This is nowhere near the final argument on the ultimate constitutional issue, but rather the gov't's emergency motion for a partial stay of a few injunctions. I doubt they'll spend too much time on the ultimate merits decision, so I suspect it will be interesting to lawyers and policy wonks, and disappointing to everyone else.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Over the years, there has been some bipartisan congressional support for cameras at SCOTUS. We can see hearings for multiple lower courts, including state courts and certain foreign supreme courts. Brian Lamb of C-SPAN is a big supporter.

They provided easy access to audio. It's due time they provide access to video.

[ThePublius]

You want to see KBJ picking her nose?

[Commenter_XY]

No cameras! The audio recording is good enough. The last thing we need at SCOTUS is grandstanding attorneys.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. Let's get cameras out of Congress while we're at it.

[Commenter_XY]

I am Ok with cameras for Congress.

[rloquitur]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/05/blackwells-folly-an-update.php

Huge win for free speech. Funny VC isn't covering it.

[Kazinski]

Don't you start claiming there is calculated bias for what gets posted and what doesn't here, other than what the conspirators happen to see and are interested enough to take.the time and effort to post on it.

It is interesting however that an Assistant Chief would sue a news outlet for libel based on a video clip of the Chauvin trial, that then was refuted in a documentary by Derek Chauvinism mother using his training manuals that were in her possession. Yeah Chauvin's mother did call her a liar, but they did show convincingly that the knee in the neck technique had been trained to officers, despite Black wall's testimony to the contrary in court.

Did someone finance the lawsuit? Or is the Assistant Chief now on the hook for the 75k in attorneys fees she was ordered to pay?

[rloquitur]

It's one thing to take the position that Chauvin was screwed, but the restraint on a handcuffed man was a problem. As awful a human being as St. George was (and he was), cops shouldn't be doing that stuff.

As for your question, I don't know the answer.

[Kazinski]

The Democratic majority in California have caved and restored the provision that made soliciting a minor for sex a felony.

This was a battle between the not completely insane faction of democrats, and the irretrievably insane, the Republicans were supporting the provision.

"California Assembly Democrats to reverse course, push for felony to buy 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds for sex

The backpedaling by Democratic leaders comes as the party overall faced mounting pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, other high-level Democrats and Republican lawmakers.

Leaders said the proposed felony will be added back into AB 379, backpedaling on moves the two made last week that first removed the felony that was in the bill filed by Democratic Sacramento Assemblymember Maggy Krell."

https://www.kcra.com/article/california-assembly-democrats-reverse-course-teen-sex-solicitation-bill/64691470

Republicans pounced and started running ads against select Democrats who voted to remove the felony provision. That probably had something to do with the reversal.

https://x.com/ZavalaA/status/1919829710353359076

[ThePublius]

Republicans pounce, seize, weaponize.... 🙂

[Dimonkorotkij]

the faggot kike scott weiner made it legal to knowingly buttfuck a guy into having hiv.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

No pope yet. Eventually, it is decided by penalty kicks.

[Zarniwoop]

I sense a headline for The Onion!

[ThePublius]

I imagine it more like a Festivus celebration: Airing of grievances, feats of strength, and Festivus miracle, preceded by the Festivus dinner.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Per CBS, the Cardinals are raw-dogging the conclave.

[ThePublius]

"Rawdog originated as vulgar slang meaning “to have sex without a condom.” This sense of the term has been in use since the early 2000s."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Fucking a strange married woman with her family down the hall without a condom is now called Hegsething.

[Martinned]

Back in the day they used to lock the Cardinals up, take the roof off the building so they have to deliberate in the open air, and eventually put them on bread and water until they picked someone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1268%E2%80%931271_papal_election

[John F. Carr]

I heard on NPR while I was driving today:

Applicants sent grant proposals tailored to the Biden administration's preferences, full of DEI language. It worked, they got the grants. The Trump administration rescinded the grants. No DEI, please! The recipients sued claiming it is a First Amendment violation to use the words of their grant proposals against them.

As I heard it on the radio the case sounded silly, unlike a lot of other contract terminations which raise significant constitutional questions. Anybody got a link to the case or text reporting?

[Zarniwoop]

President Donald Trump on Tuesday formally unveiled his first round of judicial nominees since returning to the White House, tapping five lawyers whose legal credentials include prestigious clerkships and working for Republican state attorneys general or as federal prosecutors.

No Top-200 conspirators were nominated for the Supreme Court. Stay tuned for 17 posts of analysis of this obvious oversight.

[David Nieporent]

Just remember that any praise of the overwhelming qualifications of these nominees automatically becomes inoperative if they don't grant every emergency application that Trump files.

[Zarniwoop]

Look, we all know that every time a Trump appointee rules against him, it's Biden's fault.

[rloquitur]

Ha ha. That is pretty funny.

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks! The best humor does have the ring of truth to it.

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

But isn't that what's expected of them? A judge appointed by Trump should rule in Trump's favor.

No?

[not guilty]

Three justices appointed by Prick Nixon ruled against him in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). (The fourth recused himself.) Justices Ginsburg and Breyer ruled against Bill Clinton in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).

[Dimonkorotkij]

no judge appointed by the head nigger obama or the nignog lover biden ever ruled against them.

[not guilty]

Keep it classy, Dimonkorotkij.

FWIW, most commenters here don't say the quiet parts out loud.

[David Nieporent]

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[ThePublius]

"“Then I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard her placing a McDonald’s order while I was trying to report a break-in at my home.” The recording of the 911 call obtained by a local news station reveals the dispatcher clearly saying “McGriddle, mm-hmm,” before coming back on the line to speak with Johnson."

When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/self-defense/you-dont-need-a-gun-they-said-just-call-911-they-said/

[ThePublius]

"In aviation, "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" is a core principle reminding pilots to prioritize flying the aircraft first, then determining their course, and finally, communicating with air traffic control or others."

Self defense has a similar hierarchy of need. For me it's take cover, prepare to defend yourself, and only then, call 911. I may be unusual, but when home alone I always have an equalizer and a phone close at hand. Yes, there have been home invasions in my city; usually, people who know each other and are involved in some criminal activity, but occasionally (rarely) a random home invasion.

What do you think?

[shawn_dude]

Because out of over 100,000 public safety operators in the US, this one bad one is why you need to own a gun. Except, in this example, the intruder didn't harm the caller so it turns out they didn't need a gun.

Which is a lot less than the 1262 unintentional deaths of a child by a gun in the US over the last two decades.

More conservative pro-life examples.

[Jmaie]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crm3mzymdgpo

UK nurse convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Evidence presented was that four elderly patients died of seizures while hypoglycemic, and he happened to be on duty at the time.

Would that level of evidence suffice for a murder charge here in the US?

Meanwhile, prosecutors are fighting his appeal despite additional similar deaths in the same facility happening after he went to prison...

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

I knew the nurse was White before I even clicked.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Would that level of evidence suffice for a murder charge here in the US?"

In the US, nurses who kill people get a slap on the wrist.

[shawn_dude]

And rioters who beat cops with fire extinguishers get a presidential pardon.

[Martinned]

Would that level of evidence suffice for a murder charge here in the US?

In a jury trial, how can you tell?

[Zarniwoop]

Listening to Marketplace this morning:

Container ship loads this week coming in to port of LA are 35% lower than same time last year.

This evening, Marketplace reports the number of ships is down as well.

It's a pipeline with weeks-to-months time frames. So surely this is a sign of Trump being a sooper genius! [insert picture of a coyote holding an ACME(tm) rocket here]

[Commenter_XY]

Couldn't let this slide....New president, new strategy.

The US military registered a TKO to the Houthis, bombing them into submission. Now they will leave US and other shipping alone, and the Suez can reopen.

The Cauliflower really was the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter, sans morality. Utterly incompetent (mentally, too).

[Martinned]

The US military registered a TKO to the Houthis

Your sense of humour is pretty good so early in the morning. This one really cracked me up!

[Martinned]

In honour of the passing of Joseph Nye:

Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. That can be accomplished by coercion (“sticks”), payment (“carrots”) and attraction (“honey”). The first two are hard power; attraction is soft power. In the short term, hard power usually trumps soft power. But over the long term, soft power often prevails. Joseph Stalin is said to have once mockingly asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” But the papacy continues today, while Stalin’s Soviet Union is long gone.
(...)
After its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia lost most of what soft power it had, but China is striving to fill any gaps that Trump creates. China sees itself as the leader of the so-called Global South, of what used to be called “nonaligned” countries. It uses its U.N. votes and staffing and its claims to have a more successful egalitarian development model. Its Belt and Road Initiative development program is designed to attract countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

If Trump thinks he will easily beat China by completely forgoing soft power, he is likely to be disappointed. And so will we.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/25/soft-power-trump-china/

[Brett Bellmore]

As usual, a compelling essay by the author of The Upheaval.

"Managerial Bureaucracy’s Threat to Democracy and Humanity"

"How did we get here? The story begins with the managerial revolution, a phenomenon that followed on the heels of the industrial revolution. In government, in business, in education, and in almost every other sphere of life, new methods and techniques of organization emerged to manage the growing complexities of mass and scale produced by industrialization: the mass bureaucratic state, the mass standing army, the mass corporation, mass media, mass public education, and so on. Soon no major enterprise could function without employing a new kind of person: the manager, who possessed the highly technical and specialized cognitive knowledge, including new techniques of planning and procedure, necessary to make the organizational machine go.

But there’s a funny thing about managers: if left to their own devices they will multiply without end. Managers inside an organization—or a government—have a strong incentive to ensure that it continues to grow larger, more complex, and less efficient, because this means exponentially more managers must be hired to wrestle with that complexity. Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. And as new managers are hired, the relative institutional power of all managers increases. Eventually it is they, not the titular or elected leadership, who effectively control the organization, its decisions, and its strategic direction."

This is what Trump is fighting, and what is fighting Trump. But you can see it everywhere, not just in the government. Look at administrative bloat in schools. The tendency of corporations to be run for the benefit of management, rather than their nominal owners, the stockholders.

It is indeed the challenge of our ages.

[Glaucomatose]

The federal government had fewer employees on the day Trump took office than on the day Reagan left office, while the population is 40% larger and the economy is two and a half times larger. The idea that the federal workforce is some metastasizing blob is one of the more fantastical inventions of the right.

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

>while the population is 40% larger and the economy is two and a half times larger.

You just put this out there but don't justify why that's relevant.

So what?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the idea is that management in general is a metastasizing blob that increasingly functions for its own benefit.

Like businesses paying their management really well instead of distributing profits to stockholders.

Or, yeah, government bureaucrats trying to escape control of the elected branches.

I would expect government to employ a lot fewer people these days, what with computers, which really ought to have automated a lot of management out of a job. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

Yes, direct federal employment is down from 3.15M to 2.93M, but total government employment is up from 17.92M to 22.51M. And government has outsourced a lot of its work to NGO's.

[shawn_dude]

Stockholders vote, right? So if the businesses are compensating their management well, it's with the democratic approval of the stockholders.

[Brett Bellmore]

Most stocks are voted by fund managers.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, if you count the military as "Federal Employees" the "Federal Government" was a lot smaller in 2025 than it was in 1989, winning the Cold War will do that.

[Ridgeway]

I suspect an even bigger difference has been the conscious outsourcing of govt work since at least the 1980s to outside contractors in the interest of cost efficiency.

[Frank Drackman]

Yours Truly for one

[Brett Bellmore]

1989, 2.24M, currently about 1.4M

So, yes, 840K of the massive 220K reduction in the federal workforce consisted in a reduction in military forces. Non-military federal employment was 'reduced' from 910K to 1,500K.

[apedad]

WOW!

What a novel concept that no one else has ever thought about; managerial bloat.

"Business change consultants regularly denounce them as organisational dinosaurs, collapsing under their own bureaucratic dead weight. In today's era of hyper-competition, so the argument goes, the management systems and organisational structures of large firms have become redundant, along with thousands of their employees. Firms are arguably obliged, under the pressures of globalisation and the logic of shareholder value, to become flatter, leaner and faster to react to changing conditions. As international competitive pressures grow in their intensity, those corporations that fail to restructure face stagnation or collapse.

This view, of the urgent requirement for corporations to change, has become widespread and influential since the 1990s."

[Ridgeway]

Didn't James Burnham write a whole book on this before ... checks notes ... Pearl Harbor?

[Brett Bellmore]

The thesis here is that managerial bloat has mutated from a source of inefficiency, to a threat to democracy itself, because the managerial culture can't tolerate the people getting to make decisions instead of them.

[ThePublius]

White smoke! We have a new pope, to be announced soon.

[ThePublius]

Robert Francis Prevost, 59, a native of Chicago. Wow, and American pope!

[Frank Drackman]

and don't tell anyone but his name used to be Prevoststein

[Brett Bellmore]

Better than that Italian cardinal's name: "Pierbattista Pizzaballa"

Seriously, I had to look him up to make sure somebody hadn't thrown him into the list as a joke.

[David Nieporent]

Good news for once — controversial/unethical/incompetent/unqualified nominee Ed Martin has been withdrawn by Trump because, for some reason, Thom Thillis decided that this — not Hegseth or RFKJ or Gabbard — was the place where he wanted to take a stand.

[not guilty]

Martin's replacement as interim U.S. Attorney is Jeanine Pirro. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jeanine-pirro-to-replace-ed-martin-as-interim-us-attorney-trump-says/ar-AA1EqPBT?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Unlike Martin, Ms. Pirro has at least served for 12 years as a prosecutor in state court, so she may be a marginal improvement.

[Frank Drackman]

New Pope's an Amurican
That's not going to go over well, during the waiting for his announcement, saw Mexican Flags, Spanish Flags, Brazilian Flags, even a guy in a Mets cap,
not 1 Amurican Flag,
New guys from Chicago, taking the name "Leo", I like it

Frank "USA! USA! USA!"

[ThePublius]

I watched, and saw several American flags.

[Brett Bellmore]

A bill has been introduced to repeal the "Patriot" act. Surely with ultra-Hitler in the White house, every Democrat will support it! You really don't want ultra-Hitler to have those sorts of surveillance powers available to him.

The Rep who introduced it, by the way, is hotter than Occasional Cortex, in addition to being a real civil libertarian.

[SRG2]

We'll have to wait to see the text, but the title is promising.

As far as pulchritude is concerned, I agree, though I find AOC attractive as well. But then, I'd do Kristi Noem post-surgery, so I don't hold myself up as having any great class in my tastes.

[M L]

How much bitcoin is everyone holding? I'm not a big crypto guy but added a little to my position at the recent dip. Wish I bought more of course.

[SRG2]

Zero

[ThePublius]

Yuge trade deal with the U.K.!

U.S. beef to the U.K. after 20 years, and was constrained for the past 40 years.

Details here:

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2025/05/08/wheres-the-beef-its-in-trumps-trade-deal-with-britain-n4939594