Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Steven Miller has told ABC News:

Well, the Constitution is clear. And that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So that's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not. At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act which stripped Article III courts, that’s the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases. So Congress actually passed what’s called jurisdiction stripping legislation. It passed a number of laws that say that the Article III courts aren't even allowed to be involved in immigration cases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kT8nQPgp_A

The President has no power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; the Constitution at Article I, § 9 addresses the power of Congress to do so and further limits Congressional authority to cases of rebellion or invasion [when] the public safety may require it. The existence of a rebellion or invasion is only the first step of the inquiry; the requirements of public safety are a separate inquiry.

"No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily 'stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'" Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2327 (2024), quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

It won't happen with the current Department of Justice, but if President Trump and Stephen Miller are conspiring for Trump to unilaterally suspend the writ of habeas corpus, Miller deserves to be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 241.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — In any future where the Supreme Court would not block that prosecution, Miller would be joined in the dock by multiple members of Trump's cabinet, and at least several members of the current Court. No realignment of the nation's polity to deliver power sufficient to make that happen seems likely. Thus, your comment—although legally interesting—seems not really a practical pointer toward what might happen to deliver relief from this nation's ongoing Constitutional crisis.

I suggest concentrating instead on what measures can be mobilized quickly to goad the Congress and the Court into united action to check Trump's rampage—perhaps unprecedented action, but hopefully with arguable Constitutional merit, and some show of related precedent. I have been trying to suggest such actions without success, or even much show of interest or suggested improvements in response.

There seems a notable tendency of commenters here to keep their heads down and stay out of traffic. The preference seems to be for vain hopes of unlikely outcomes, from repeated applications of conventional legal tactics which no lawyer might be blamed for choosing. That does not seem to me to be response sufficient to match the challenge this historically unique moment presents.

[Kazinski]

Brett was wondering the other day how any poll could come up with such a high percentage of people to favor a Bill of Attainder against Elon Musk.

Now he knows, just poll Lathrops.

I'm not saying the problem is just confined to the left, but there are certainly a large cohort of people including Not Guilty that think anyone who is for what they are against must be criminals.

I don't think Trump suspending habeas would be upheld by the courts, but Lincoln did it, and I don't remember anyone going to jail then.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and I don't remember anyone going to jail then."

What about Merryman? I'm pretty sure he went to jail.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, as a person who combines ignorance of Civil War era history, with anti-Constitutional advocacy, I am not surprised you offer nothing to ease a national Constitutional crisis you seem actually to favor. Why you would favor it remains the mystery.

[Mr. Bumble]

When everything is a "Constitutional crisis" nothing is.

[Kazinski]

Now I don't consider myself a civil expert, but I have read Grants Memoirs, twice, and Sandberg's Lincoln, but only the first two volumes.

But here's this:

"April 27, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln instructs General Winfield Scott to suspend habeas corpus as necessary to keep vital transport and supply lines clear in Maryland. This action kicks off a legal dispute with the Supreme Court.

One month later, on May 25, 1861, John Merryman, a state legislator from Maryland, is arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington during the Civil War and is held at Fort McHenry by Union military officials. His attorney immediately sought a writ of habeas corpus so that a federal court could examine the charges. However, because President Lincoln had suspended the right, the general in command of Fort McHenry refused to turn Merryman over to the authorities."

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/april-27/president-lincoln-suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus-during-the-civil-war

Two years later Congress did pass a statute, and he suspended it again for 6 months.

[Martinned]

Lots of things happened back then that should have gotten people arrested. That's not unusual for (US) wars.

[Kazinski]

I certainly agree with you there. Most people before 1960, let alone just war leaders, would end up in jail for a lot of things that seemed perfectly normal.

Spanking kids, misgendering, not wearing seatbelts, drinking and driving, racial slurs, blaspheming other religions, but at least they didn't have to worry about getting arrested for social media posts.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird comment.

You're mixing speech that doesn't get anyone put in jail today either (misgendering, racial slurs, blasphemy), and spanking which is also legal today.

And then you go after seatbelt laws, drinking and driving laws which are pretty popular.

And you ignore the civil rights laws, which for most people represent the big 1960s advance re: liberty.

All told, you are wrong about a lot, advocating for the return of bad stuff, and ignoring good stuff.

[Kazinski]

Depends on which country, it happens in the UK.

"Mother, 38, is arrested in front of her children and locked in a cell for seven HOURS after calling a transgender woman a man on Twitter
Police officers detained Kate Scottow, 38, at her home in Hitchin, Hertfordshire
More than two months after her arrest and she has had neither her mobile phone or laptop returned
The complaints made by activist Stephanie Hayden led to arrest of Mrs Scottow"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html

Its not quite criminal in Canada, yet, but its close:

"Bill C-16 added gender identity or expression to federal human rights and hate-crime laws in 2017. It did not legislate the use of specific pronouns, but left it to human rights tribunals to decide on a case-by-case basis."
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

[Brett Bellmore]

And a lot of people got arrested for things that should never result in arrest. Lincoln was a straight up tyrant, Booth had that much right.

Executive Order—Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors

"Major-General John A. Dix,

Commanding at New York:

Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.

A. LINCOLN."

[Brett Bellmore]

I should be obvious that even if there was actionable fraud involved, (And perhaps no more than the media committed against Trump in his first term.) the courts were fully functional, and there was no justification for stepping outside the normal legal process.

Except that Lincoln wanted his political foes silenced.

[bernard11]

If he was such a tyrant, why did he feel it necessary to run for re-election in 1864?

if there was actionable fraud involved, (And perhaps no more than the media committed against Trump in his first term.)

Oh for Pete's sake. What does it take for you to stop this shit, and what "actionable fraud" did the media commit against Trump? Reporting accurately is not fraud.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've got plenty of experience interacting with the institutional press. The usual way they commit fraud, lie, is to find somebody telling the lie they want to tell you, and then accurately report what they say without warning you that it's a lie.

So, they report on the Steele dossier, without telling their readers that it's a steaming heap, say. And their defense is, "Nothing we said was untrue!"

Sure, just deliberately incomplete.

[Mr. Bumble]

Always according to un-named sources.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — It could not be clearer that whatever your experience interacting with the, "institutional press," it did not improve your insight. My guess is that you have not spent 10 minutes in the newsroom of any major newspaper in this nation. If you have, it would not surprise me to learn that people who worked there could not afford time enough to set you straight.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right. Go ahead and claim that's not how it works, most people know better.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As an aside -- what a lot of people don't realize is that there was no B&O tunnel -- and trains were not allowed to go through Baltimore. and to this day all the rail to DC from the north & west goes through Baltimore.

So they had to march men and haul equipment with horses through Baltimore, one Massachusetts regiment had to shoot its way through the city.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Care to share with readers what conduct got Merryman in trouble? Might help them understand the whole wartime urgency piece, and why that is part of the Constitutional mix.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Include every law professor in the country while you are at it.

All Miller has done is TALK ABOUT what is a defensible interpretation of Article III. He hasn't done anything, and his argument is defensible, which doesn't mean you have to agree.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, if I'm understanding this, the administration's complaint is that Article III courts should not, legally, be taking these immigration related cases, because Congress stripped them of jurisdiction over them.

Now, I personally think, (I know this is a minority position, but it does have some support from the founding era.) that the language Congress appeals to when jurisdiction stripping was really about Congress having the power to move topics from the Supreme court's appellate jurisdiction to its original jurisdiction, and while the lower courts can be subject to jurisdiction stripping, the Supreme court can't.

And the whole idea of non article III courts, outside of the military, is pretty dubious to begin with.

But if you grant the legitimacy of both Article II courts and jurisdiction stripping, the administration does have a point here. It does look like Congress spent many words trying to keep the courts from hearing exactly these sorts of cases.

Maybe, just maybe, they're stupidly talking about suspending habeas when they really mean enforcing jurisdiction stripping.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Past tense -- stripped.

SCOTUS can grant cert.

[not guilty]

Brett, every federal court has habeas corpus jurisdiction generally, per 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Subsection (e) creates a narrow exception in the case of "an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

Steven Miller did not limit his incendiary comments to alleged enemy combatants. In any event, removing habeas corpus jurisdiction from federal courts is exclusively the province of Congress, not of the executive. See, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (rejecting INS claim that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) removed the Attorney General's discretion to grant a waiver of deportation).

There is a "longstanding rule requiring a clear statement of congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction." Id., at 298, citing Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 102 (1869) ("We are not at liberty to except from [habeas corpus jurisdiction] any cases not plainly excepted by law"). "Implications from statutory text or legislative history are not sufficient to repeal habeas jurisdiction; instead, Congress must articulate specific and unambiguous statutory directives to effect a repeal." Id., at 299 (emphasis added); Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall., at 105.

As the Court in St. Cyr recognized, this is constitutionally required:

A construction of the amendments at issue that would entirely preclude review of a pure question of law by any court would give rise to substantial constitutional questions. Article I, § 9, cl. 2, of the Constitution provides: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Because of that Clause, some "judicial intervention in deportation cases" is unquestionably "required by the Constitution." Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 235 (1953).

533 U.S. at 300.

Conspiring to unlawfully suspend the writ of habeas corpus is a crime, per 18 U.S.C. 241. The current DOJ will not always be there to pull Steven Miller's chestnuts out of the fire.

[ReaderY]

In referring to prosecuting members of the Trump Administration, you are assuming the Republic survives Trump and there is a future non-MAGA President. Otherwise you are simply engaging in fantasy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I will confidently predict that the Republic will survive Donald Trump, AND there will be a future non-MAGA President.

And if the Republic does not survive, it's more likely to be brought down by the efforts to get at Trump, than by Trump himself.

[Martinned]

I will confidently predict that the Republic will survive Donald Trump

Sure, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea also survived the death of Kim Il-Sung. They still have elections and everything.

[Don Nico]

"and everything."
including strategic nuclear weapons paid for with stolen crytocurrency

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you keep hoping Trump will do stuff Latin American strongmen do.

I'm not sure you know the difference between a republic and pretense so long as your taxes get cut and the outgroups get silenced.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't seem to understand the difference between hoping somebody will do something, and saying that you should have anticipated him doing it.

I think Trump SHOULD have dotted every "i" and crossed every "t", while doing things that would outrage you anyway because you oppose them as policy, even as I support them as policy. Because he has the damned law on his side when it comes to illegal immigration. He should have spent his political capital forcing the Republican Congress to get off their dead asses and pass legislation!

But after his meeting with Milei nobody should be surprised at the tack he took instead.

I think he has misjudged the situation, at least in regards to the American people: Argentina was far enough gone that they not only needed somebody like Milei to rescue the country, they would SUPPORT somebody like Milei.

I don't think the US is that far gone yet, and I'm very certain that the American people aren't ready for a Milei type administration even if we were.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed predicts civil war over and over, and despite his insistence that he's not in favor of such a thing, everyone can see he's yearning.

Seems a relevant observation to drop here.

[Brett Bellmore]

I muted Ed months ago. Got sick of his "nuke Gaza" outbursts.

I think the US is on a glide path to a very ugly place, the rule of law has been, as I've said, deteriorating for most of a century, mostly at the hands of Democrats, but recently also Republicans. Like the Patriot act, what an abomination. Public support for assassination and political violence in general has been rising.

I don't think genuinely liberal democracy is a lost cause in the US yet, but we're headed that way. And as destruction is easier than construction, as thermodynamics dictates that disorder happens on its own while order takes hard work to achieve and maintain, we are pretty much doomed if we don't wake up to what is going on and put in that hard work.

Sadly, I don't think enough people have woken to how bad things are for that work to be politically viable.

[bernard11]

I don't think enough people have woken to how bad things are for that work to be politically viable.

You certainly haven't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Gaslighto gaslights...

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, the catastrophizing I am reading is truly something to behold.

Agree the Republic will survive and endure. LOL.

[Riva]

Just so you hysterical trolls understand, there will not actually be any suspension of habeas corpus. But hopefully, the administration will keep threatening to do so to encourage the S.Ct. to get off its ass and reign in the out of control lower courts.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"...the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So that's an option we're actively looking at."

Are you calling Steven Miller a liar?

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess you just can't understand the difference between looking at doing something, and actually doing it.

[Riva]

There are arguments on both sides little troll. But for the record, I’m not calling him a liar. I’n calling him a brilliant tactician. If I called anyone a liar, they’d have a (D) following their names.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"...the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So that's an option we're actively looking at."

Are you calling Steven Miller a liar?

I was actively looking at buying a Corvette once, but I never actually did it.

It's amazing how some of you struggle so pathetically with such simple concepts.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump uses "we're looking at it" all the time, its his go to. Nothing ever happens though.

Seems like Miller has his Trump brand laser pointer out, to make the lib cats dance.

[Martinned]

Yes, isn't it funny how worked up the libs get about the constant stream of (possible) violations of the constitution? Oh we laughed and laughed!

[Bob from Ohio]

The point is that constantly running around with one's hair on fire means most people eventually ignore you.

Aesop wrote about the concept 2500 years ago.

[Martinned]

So your theory is that if Donald Trump does enough unconstitutional things for long enough, at some point we're all supposed to stop talking about it?

[not guilty]

Uh, Riva, prosecution and conviction of conspiracy does not require that the conspiratorial objective actually be achieved.

[Supremacy Claus]

Lincoln had soldiers enter a courtroom and pistol whip a judge on the bench, haul him to prison, He was giving writs to dirty Confederate spies. Sounds correct.

[Michael Ejercito]

I never knew that.

Where did you get this idea?

[Brett Bellmore]

Richard Bennett Carmichael

The part about the pistol whipping is certainly accurate. I'm not sure where he got the "dirty Confederate spies" part; Perhaps he was being sarcastic?

[Speaking for normal people]

Lincoln DID suspend habeas corpus, so maybe you have that creepoing legal laziness Biden had, bottom 10 of his law class

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about addressing his actual Article 3 argument -- Congress has the authority to specify the jurisdiction of the inferior courts and has stated that immigration isn't included.

[not guilty]

There is a "longstanding rule requiring a clear statement of congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction." Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 298 (2001), citing Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 102 (1869) ("We are not at liberty to except from [habeas corpus jurisdiction] any cases not plainly excepted by law"). "Implications from statutory text or legislative history are not sufficient to repeal habeas jurisdiction; instead, Congress must articulate specific and unambiguous statutory directives to effect a repeal." St. Cyr, at 299 (emphasis added); Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall., at 105.

Even where a statute precludes judicial review, habeas corpus remains available as a remedy. Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U. S. ____ (2025), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf The scope of inquiry and the available remedies of the two differs. See, Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights).

[Bob from Ohio]

Whee does text say Congress, and only Congress?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Its an inference because its in Article I. As several have pointed out, Lincoln thought he could do the suspending.

Are you a better lawyer than Abe was?

[not guilty]

There are authorities extant now that were unavailable to President Lincoln. Constitutional law is not frozen in amber.

And as the noted philosopher Ernest Tubb sang, Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd9LriQ4vpE

[Stephen Lathrop]

If this nation proves incapable to defend and keep its republican form of government, where is it headed? What form will its subsequent civil experience take?

Some commentary here wold make those questions for civil war or revolution to determine. I have been reading a book which suggests another possibility—a long interval without any resolution, just protracted deadly chaos and civil terror. The book, titled, Say Nothing, was written by Patrick Radden Keefe. It presents as a true account of four decades of the Irish, “Troubles,” as experienced by violent participants on the republican side.

It is impossible to read, Say Nothing, without noticing how this nation could be headed for a similarly protracted interval of struggle in chaotic quicksand. The circumstances in Ireland then were notably like circumstances in the United States now. Two factions, chaotic mis-government, two polities, each with an assured regional base, and each with extensive minority presence within its rival’s base. Nobody with vision, capacity, or even serious intent to bring violent chaos to an end.

Sound familiar? So imagine that blood-drenched interval re-enacted in this larger nation, at a scale proportionately magnified.

[Paladin_44]

Cue our own version of "Derry Girls"?

[shawn_dude]

Hungary and Serbia are on the slow march from democracy to autocracy. We seem to be moving faster, perhaps due to our devotion to exceptionalism.

[Kazinski]

The UK Telegraph has an interesting article about whether the UK's grid has a similar vulnerability as Spain's grid does:

Britain could face months-long blackouts because of net zero
Grid operator has raised concerns that the switch from dependable gas to intermittent wind and solar power will ‘reduce network stability’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/britain-blackouts-net-zero-ed-miliband/

Its paywalled but its quoted extensively here:

The National System Energy Operator (Neso), which runs the grid, published a report in that same month, which warned of an increased risk of “outages”. It set out that the reduction in “synchronous” power generation, such as from gas and nuclear, in favour of renewables “reduces network stability”. …

In response, Britain is having to invest large amounts of cash in “stability network services”, such as mass battery storage, to back up the system. Neso said the cost of these would “increase significantly by 2030, up to an estimated £1 billion a year”, citing modelling by Imperial College London. …

A report compiled by the Cabinet Office earlier this year found that the risk of a nationwide blackout was “low”, but that the effects would be devastating.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/11/britain-could-face-months-long-blackouts-because-of-net-zero/

Well scratch Britain off the list of potential sites for any AI data centers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AI data centers have yet to show any convincing evidence of civil utility. Massive social disruptions for reasons having nothing to do with excessive electrical demand seems the likeliest near-term prospect. Advocacy to entail disruptive extra electrical demand on their behalf seems at least premature, and
likely foolish.

For now, this is not a nation positioned for another round of, "Let's see what happens when we do this."

[Kazinski]

If they don't build it, then no one will come.

One reason US consistently beats other developed countries growth is because we are making very little commitment to net zero even under Democrats, and none under Republicans.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784

[Mr. Bumble]

Europe needs Reddy Killowatt.

[Martinned]

Does this count?

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

[Mr. Bumble]

"The long-term goal of fusion research is to generate electricity. ITER's stated purpose is scientific research, and technological demonstration of a large fusion reactor, without electricity generation."
Hardly.

[Martinned]

There was a time when the US was also doing research and pursuing innovation...

[Kazinski]

Microsoft says we can't have fusion until.AI figures it out for us.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/09/microsoft_ai_fusion/

So how far away is ITER from.sustainable fusion?

40 years?

That's what they were saying 40 years ago.

[Zarniwoop]

Practical fusion power is always “40 years from now”

[Mr. Bumble]

Much like the disastrous effects of "climate change" are always "just" 5 or 10 years away.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still are, but ITER is, and for a long time has been, just a welfare program for physicists. Even if it did eventually achieve engineering breakeven, it's such a wildly expensive approach to fusion as to be utterly impractical.

[Sarcastr0]

Enabling basic research is good, actually. Going straight at a physics problem is often not the best method.

This isn’t an engineering problem yet.

[Michael P]

The physics of fusion have been understood for decades, with no substantial change. The basic problem is that stars make fusion work by volume that we cannot achieve, and nobody has a credible idea how to build a containment device with a positive energy balance. Calling that a physics problem is just hoping for a deus ex machina. All the work over the last several decades has been engineering work: leading edge and very specialized engineering, but mostly because everyone realizes fusion has long been stuck at the transition from step 1 into step 2:
1. Build tokamak.
2. ???
3. Profitable fusion!

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not entirely true: We've known since at least the 50's how to achieve a positive energy balance with fusion. It's just that people didn't like how large the "fuel pellets" had to be. But if we'd needed fusion power, we'd have it, I've actually seen a 1970's era design for a fusion powerplant. It would have worked just fine, it just wouldn't have been cost competitive with fission plants.

Fusion does not "want" to work both continuously and on a small scale at the same time. It "wants" to be either very sudden, or very large. Pick one.

Fission, by contrast, almost begs and pleads to work on a human scale. The Victorians could have built fission reactors if they'd known what to do. Uranium ore beds have literally gone critical in the ground and functioned as nuclear reactors!

Fusion is the best that has been chosen to be the enemy of fission, the good. Fission is the only sort of nuclear power we can currently do economically, and would be sufficient to power the entire world for another billion years or so.

[Sarcastr0]

The physics of hot and cold plasmas still has a ton to learn about.

[Brett Bellmore]

The basic physics are pretty clear, but the emergent properties are a bitch. It's not turtles all the way down, it's instabilities.

I think while any individual fusion startup faces terrible odds, if enough approaches are attempted, one is likely to work.

And still not be economically viable compared to simple fission.

But fusion, even if not economically viable on earth, has promise for rocketry in space. And maybe I'm wrong about the economics. I just happen to think we're better off pursuing a lot of relatively cheap approaches, rather than one maximally expensive approach.

[Sarcastr0]

You're papering over plenty of holes in our understanding in order to assume we have it all figured and the engineering requirements are well known.

ITER is still primarily a research project, not an engineering one. There is plenty of research in the grand challenge style of try-and-fail-and-learn.
Plus, plasma physics is useful for a ton of stuff beyond going straight at doing fusion.
-------------
One of the hardest things to explain about basic research is that it's not metrics-ready. If you start throwing an RoI into the equation, you will be leaving a ton of unexpected results on the table.
The threshold my office uses are:
1) is there a knowledge gap
2) is the research fundamental
3) is there a proper scientific predicate
4) is the approach technically sound

At that point, everything is fundable and what remains is picking the best one.
I've always thought we should consider doing a lottery there, but federal regs don't allow that.
The main question we ask review panelists to distinguish the remaining proposals is whether they think the approach is 'sweet' which is a largely intuitive thing - you need to trust the experts.
That and put them in a room and watch them argue it out about the top few proposals in their discipline.

[Brett Bellmore]

I like basic research as much as the next guy, but ITER isn't basic research, it's applied research with a specific end in mind: Building a practical tokamak.

[Sarcastr0]

"ITER is still primarily a research project, not an engineering one. There is plenty of research in the grand challenge style of try-and-fail-and-learn."

It has an 'aimed at' goal. That is not the same as not being basic research.
IMO the grant challenge model is one of the best ways to get basic engineering research out.

Were it only applied research I agree it's way too shaggy and unfocused.

[Mr. Bumble]

Brett's remora wakes up.

[Michael P]

The US is part of ITER, and recently finished the "Central Solenoid" component of it.

But the ITER people plan to vent 500 MW of heat, plus 250 MW of overhead energy, straight to the environment. These physicists are conspiring to contribute directly to global warming.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
The cycle of an ITER pulse is too short for the 500 MW to amount to a significant amount of thermal energy dumped into the atmosphere

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, how many MW/H is it?

[Don Nico]

ITER is an enormous boondoggle as its design (its plasma physics with low power density) does not scale to an operational power plant. Peter Kapitza recognized the unfavorable scaling of the tokomak decades ago.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — your are mistaken to refer to, "developed countries growth." That implies a relevant comparison of this nation's experience to that of other nations.

But this nation as a whole has not recently been growing. It has been growing mostly as a matter of economic and political advantages for an elite fraction. Those have reaped a vastly disproportionate share of all the proceeds of allegedly national economic growth. They are happy. The others—a notable majority—remain baffled by claims of largess which somehow never comes their way.

That fact, although inadequately reported, and widely misunderstood, has a lot to do with this nation's currently ongoing Constitutional crisis. Your own engagement seems to be on behalf of multiplying the misunderstandings, perhaps with an eye to make the crisis harder to resolve.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like Bernie Sanders is commenting under the name Steven Lathrop.

[Kazinski]

Well you are wrong of course.

I posted an analysis last summer that showed that in 2019, the last full year of Trump's first term before the pandemic, the real income of the lowest quintile went up by over 10%, the largest increase since before 1980.
See here:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/26/monday-open-thread-68/?comments=true#comment-10700023

My best stuff is always worth rereading:

"The mean of the 5th Quintile of Household Income in 2019, the first full year of data after the corporate tax cut, inceased by 10.96%.

The data is here;
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles

10.96% is impressive on its own, but even more impressive in context, it was the best single year performance going all the way back to 1980.

Now I admit there might have been other factors responsible for the absolute highest percentage increase in income for the lowest Quintile going back to at least 1980 other than his corporate tax cut, it might have also beeen due to sharply cutting illegal immigration, since illegal immigrants compete with mostly the lowest quintile in the job market, since 2017 was the lowest single year for illegal border crossings going back to 1990."

I was trying to tell you then why Trump was going to get reelected, in large part because of voters in the lowest income quintile. But you didn't want to listen.

[jb]

Trump does deserve credit* for achieving real wage growth, especially for lower income workers. This is mostly the result of a change in Fed policy, though: Trump persuaded Powell not to preemptively raise rates as the economy reached "full employment" which allowed the labor market to become tight enough that employers actually had to raise wages.

Note that the 2019 increase in income wasn't confined to the lowest quintile so alternative explanations like fewer immigrants competing for jobs are unlikely. The top quintile saw 9.4% growth that same year, and the second quintile grew by 9.6%.

* This is one of the two things I think he did well in his first term.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, a rising tide lifts all boats.

[jb]

In this case, yes. That often hasn't been the case in the last several decades, though. From 1979-2019, real wage growth for the bottom decile was about half of median, and less than a third of the top decile's.

[David Nieporent]

The others—a notable majority—remain baffled by claims of largess which somehow never comes their way.

That fact, although inadequately reported, and widely misunderstood,

That is entirely backwards. It is ubiquitously reported, and given that it is entirely untrue, is 100% misunderstood.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, you and I are destined to differ about the meaning of, "largesse." You seem to join most right wingers who suppose an isolated measure of personal income (not wealth), taken outside broader economic context, can prove the poor to be thriving despite their own opinions to the contrary.

I trust better the judgments of the poor, who think otherwise. I think economic progress for the poor can only happen to the extent they close the economic gaps between themselves and others, and that relative gaps in wealth matter more than relative gaps in income. So-called, "real income," does not measure either relative social status, nor access to most of the most beneficial goods the economy offers.

For instance, wealth, not income, best accounts for accessibility to an array of goods in fixed supply; fixed supply assures that relative wealth, not absolute income, is what either enables or disqualifies access. Such goods currently include safe and pleasant living conditions, the chance to live in a location close to employment opportunities, access to efficient health care which actually works, job security, access to elite educational opportunities, effective public participation, public office, and public honors, among others.

Accessibility to all those things remains competitive despite income changes, with relative wealth better empowering the competitors who win. Not coincidentally, the limited-supply goods most sought after tend to be those which deliver reinforcement for opportunities to increase wealth. The poor achieve, "largesse," only to the extent their incomes and their wealth are closing the gaps which separate them from others. The poor cannot afford merely to increase their incomes, while others advance even faster. If that happens, the poor are only falling farther behind.

[David Nieporent]

It's not a race, so they're not "falling farther behind" anything. The economy is just not zero sum. Everyone can become better off, and get access to all the things that go into a better standard of living.

[jb]

Everyone can, in theory, but in practice most of the gains of the past four decades have been concentrated amongst the wealthy at the same time costs of housing, medicine and education have been skyrocketing. Not a very fun recipe if you're young and/or poor!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — It's only non-zero sum in cases where the supply of everything can expand to meet demand. Where classes of goods in high demand cannot be expanded, either for practical reasons, or in principle, then it becomes zero-sum. If you want, you can sign up for real estate seminars which teach that as a sales principle, one useful to maximize sales to the wealthiest clients.

When my purchasing power increases, and your purchasing power increases more, my capacity to compete for fixed-supply goods declines relative to yours. I listed such classes above. If townhouses in Georgetown confer unique advantages along the way to wealth and power, a small class which commands larger increases in wealth will end up with the townhouses in Georgetown.

[Kazinski]

Largess?

This is America, if you want something then work for it.

Don't complain because nobody wants to give it to you.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or get elected to Congress and become a multi-millionaire on $174,000 per year. Ask Nancy how its done.

[Sarcastr0]

The unvirtuous poor.

The prosperity gospel of the free market.

[Bwaaah]

The laments of an overeducated loser.

[jb]

The US was consistently beating other countries' growth before anyone was making Net Zero commitments, so that's just you overlaying your policy preferences on data that is barely even loosely correlated with your hypothesis.

Also: most of the companies building AI data centers have their own emissions reductions goals, have been building data centers in countries with Net Zero targets this whole time, and also have backup generators.

[Brett Bellmore]

"AI data centers have yet to show any convincing evidence of civil utility."

So what? What relevance does that remark have to do with destabilizing the grid by adding poorly regulated sources?

Are you suggesting that blackouts are OK if you think one of the things power is used for is pointless?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, I cannot believe even you suppose pointless efforts justify multiplication of blackouts. A sensible person ought to conclude that if blackouts are too prevalent already, a policy to risk more of them needs to be supported by especially strong justifications.

Maybe you ought to rethink that comment.

Of course, your upcoming insistence to change the subject to unstable electrical grids will be anticipated by everyone.

[Kazinski]

Well I agree with you there, the grid is too fragile in the UK for any AI data centers, Spain and Germany too.

Which is why they will sit on the sidelines.

[jb]

https://www.fdiintelligence.com/content/38712096-ffd9-5ae4-ad55-26de856e5ae4

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
I urge you to look at the many statistics that describe the high level of Dunkelflautte that plague the UK as much a Germany.

[Joe_dallas]

Correct -
Dunkelflautte are generally continental wide.

Same with the north american continent - See the real time data below for the lower 48 states.

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

dial into Feb 2021 during the Texas Freeze fiasco. Note that the wind drought was across the entire US for 7-10 days at various levels of drought. From Feb 7th-2021 through Feb 20th

[Joe_dallas]

Here is a reasonable preliminary analysis of the spanish grid failure.

Written by someone with actual electric generation and grid experience - as opposed to one of the renewable experts.

https://judithcurry.com/2025/05/05/casting-blame-for-the-blackout-in-spain-portugal-and-parts-of-france/

[Speaking for normal people]

That's like saying farmers haven't shown evidence of civil utillity. here you are on the Internet using archived Google data from nightly sweeps of the Net and you say such a mindless thing. Your bank, all your important records, your whole email history, and for many students and remote workers your entire job depends on those data centers. I know, why don't you ask ChatGPT and see if I'm right.

[jb]

Lathrop's claim is that AI hasn't shown utility, not that datacenters haven't.

[Speaking for normal people]

No. datacenters use AI and have almost from the beginning. you call it AI but much of it is NLP and Expert Systems.

Now, is that just a lapse from let the market decide, libertarian freedom , etc.

I think AI as some kind of intelligence is rot.But 'utilty" what is that, it is most basically "USE " and the use is every damn place

[jb]

Sure, there's been ML/AI in datacenters for a long time, but training LLMs requires a lot of compute, and datacenters are being constructed specifically to support generative AI. I think it's reasonable to think about whether it's "worth it" although hopefully the market will eventually figure it out.

[Speaking for normal people]

But doesn't your answer obviously show that most on Reason do not know what they are talking about and that the markets can hardly figure anything out when the VP promoting technology initiatives is stupid as shit. Here she is saying both that 'cloud storage' is up in the sky in a cloud and then saying it is not physically anywhere. So here's 22 seconds of an unbelievably incompetent woman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liL2VXYNyus

[jb]

I think it's funny that people on the right use "TDS" to try to ignore every argument against him, and yet here we have a conversation that basically has nothing to do with any politician from the US (remember we've been talking about European power grids!) which apparently requires you to bring up some random thing that Kamala said at some point.

And no, none of what you wrote obviously extends from anything I wrote.

[Speaking for normal people]

All? Care to have a cup of moderation with me

Let's see what happens would be the case if we curtailed data centers !!!

[Malika the Maiz]

Anti-globalist, anti-elite President drains the swamp by accepting “flying palace” luxury jet from foreign oil sheiks!

Cultists rush to defend. Dupes gonna be duped, lol.

[A Woman of No Importance]

They think "but what about Hunter Biden" is a magical incantation that absolves Trump of any moral responsibility for anything.

And I have a question for the what abouters: Does that also work in reverse? If we were having a conversation about Hunter Biden, would "But what about Donald Trump" equally absolve Hunter? Or is that a one way street?

[Riva]

It’s not”what about Hunter Biden.” It’s what about the Big Guy, and his decades of treasonous influence peddling. Nobody would funnel millions to his crackhead son. They don’t want his art or his “creative “ selfies. He was just a bagman.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sadly, if even the bigly MAGA brains in the House of Representatives cannot find any credible evidence of Joe Biden taking any bribes, we'll probably never know for sure.

[A Woman of No Importance]

You didn't answer my question, which I will now rephrase: If we were having a conversation about the Big Guy, would "But what about Donald Trump" absolve Biden of moral culpability in the same way that you seem to think "But what about Biden" absolves Trump? Or is that a one way street?

[Riva]

President Trump had done nothing wrong. But the Big Guy? He has a lot of questions to answer. I wonder if he gave himself a blanket pardon?

[A Woman of No Importance]

"President Trump had done nothing wrong." Please tell me you're making a joke; I have a hard time believing even you are stupid enough to believe that.

[David Nieporent]

Bot is allergic to evidence. It's allergic to even the notion of evidence.

[Speaking for normal people]

Okay, and we just accept that you are of the highest moral fiber, an anoymous unknown yapping on the Internet. Got a mirror ????

[A Woman of No Importance]

I do my best to actually engage the arguments made by my opponents. So far nobody on the right has even bothered to try to answer what strikes me as a legitimate question:

"If we were having a conversation about Biden, would "But what about Donald Trump" absolve Biden of moral culpability in the same way that you seem to think "But what about Biden" absolves Trump? Or is that a one way street?"

Anyone?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think there's any absolving going on here. At least not on my part. Rather, it's a matter of putting things in (Undesired!) context.

In a country with a healthy political culture, Trump would be a massive change for the worse. But we do NOT have a healthy political culture.

We have a political culture where Trump can get the Republican nomination, and it's pretty bad that Trump can win even with people like Rand Paul or even DeSantis in the race. Pathological, even.

But before Democrats celebrate how terrible the Republicans are, they need to confront that they're lately nominating people even Trump could beat. Half the country thinks their nominees are as bad or worse! That perception is NOT due to their being fantastic nominees and half the country being clinically insane, it's because the Democratic party, too, is puking up horrific candidates!

You think great candidates did that badly against spastic ultra-Hitler? As if.

Part of the problem, I think, is that the major parties got scared by an upsurgence of third party activity, and 'fortified' the electoral system against any alternative to themselves. As a result, to win elections they no longer have to run candidates people actually like. They just have to convince a bit over half the electorate to be more scared of the other guy, because there is no longer any third choice in reality.

So the two parties are locked in a downward spiral, each striving to just convince people the other is worse, not to actually be liked themselves.

The Republicans got Trump because they spent decades running a bait and switch on their own base, and said base finally got so sick of it that they were willing to try the first non-establishment candidate who came along who had enough staying power to get past the establishment's defenses against internal challengers.

And then he got seen actually trying to carry out his campaign promises, and it was all over.

But what's driving the Democratic party to nominate people so awful that even Trump could beat them?

[A Woman of No Importance]

Brett, that may explain some of it, but not all of it. It strikes me that the GOP base actually likes Trump, otherwise they could have nominated Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis. What I'm hearing from the GOP base is not "at least we're not Biden/Harris." Rather, it's "I want to burn the place down."

Your theory may explain why Trump won in November. It does not explain how he got the nomination in the first place.

[Jmaie]

In 2016 Trump got the nomination because he was (seen as) better than any of the other 17 member GOP clown car candidate pool. In 2024 my impression was that the establishment feared a backlash from base and there was no other candidate who could overcome that fear. And in both cases the Dems ran a worse candidate.

Today, there's no one in either party that seems able to break the trend. Scary...

[Speaking for normal people]

Okay, I object to your nobody on the right. Are you also in charge of labels.

[not guilty]

Someone who resorts to naked whataboutism in most cases admits that he has no substantive response.

[Riva]

That’s it, let it all out, little Malika, maybe you’ll eventually find some other nutcase to commiserate with on the issue.

[A Woman of No Importance]

She's a nutcase for calling out a fairly obvious case of influence peddling? Your moral compass is in obvious need of a new battery.

[Riva]

And it’s kismet already.

[SRG2]

Even Laura "Jigsaw' Loomer has criticised Trump for this.

[ThePublius]

You're a gullible dupe for believing the lying media on this story. Why not look into a bit rather than just swallow this nonsense?

"It’s a used airplane. Two weeks ago, the transaction was reported by all the major media outlets and reported as completely benign. Nothing about the transaction has changed.

Two weeks later this is being spun as “out of the blue,” a “terrorist-supporting” Qatar is “bribing Trump” with a free “$400 million” 747 for his “personal” use."

Boeing was contracted during Trump's first term to build replacements for the planes that date to George H.W. Bush's administration. They are years behind schedule, $2B over budget at this point, and are now saying the planes won't be done until 2035!

I think this is pretty creative on the administration's part, to replace the aging planes.

[Sarcastr0]

"the transaction."

[ThePublius]

Do you have something substantive to add? Or are you just throwing stones again, as usual?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Two weeks ago, nobody was reporting that Trump was going to be stealing the plane after his presidency ended.

[ThePublius]

Stealing? Really? Can you back that up?

[David Nieporent]

Really. Did you miss the part of the story where he would give it to his library as he leaves office? I'd post links, but (a) this was so widely reported that I can't believe you're even asking in good faith; and (b) I know the drill. I post one and MAGA will sneer, "NYT? Washington Post? They're woke liberal DEI so you can't believe them."

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, this plane is only meant to be used for a few years, it's a stopgap because Boeing is being inexcusably slow in delivering the new Air Force One that we ordered years ago. It's intended to be mothballed once the real Air Force One is delivered.

And it's not like there isn't precedent for Air Force One to be retired to a presidential library.

But it's not a great look, either, and Trump had to know that absolutely anything he does will be portrayed by most of the media as a crime. So maybe he should have arranged for it to go to Udvar Hazy, instead.

[bernard11]

Your "precedent" concerns a plane that was in use as AF1 for 28 years.

The Qatari jet is reportedly thirteen years old, so it has plenty of life left. So answer my question. Why can't continue to used as AF1 after Trump's term ends?

[ducksalad]

Huh? What possible benefit would Trump see in promising his plane to some successor that might even be a Democrat?

Keep in mind that all the legal justifications are made up by his staff to rationalize things after the fact. In the mind of Donald Trump it's simple: it was given to him and it's his.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and again, this plane is only intended as a stopgap until the government takes delivery of the STANDARD AF1 that Boeing got a contract for in 2018, and was supposed to have delivered three years ago. And now isn't expected to deliver until maybe 2030!

But I'll agree the optics are bad, and there are plenty of museums that would take it if and when Boeing finally delivers it's promised planes.

[bernard11]

was supposed to have delivered three years ago. And now isn't expected to deliver until maybe 2030!

Boeing's delivery promises haven't been all that reliable. So why give it away in 2029? In fact, why give it away at all? Does it lose all usefulness as soon as Boeing delivers?

[Sarcastr0]

Don't mind me; you're doing a pretty great job discrediting yourself; I'm just pointing out some of your more telling missteps.

[ThePublius]

No, you're just a troll, Sarcastr0.

[jb]

All the talking points developed over the weekend in one post. Sweet!

Conveniently absent from your narrative is the fact that Trump gets to keep the plane for his personal use after he's done being President, which wasn't reported two weeks ago and which is what makes the "transaction" so problematic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump gets to keep the plane for his personal use after he's done being President"

Does he?

Its being transferred to his library. Is it for eventual display or to be flown?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's for eventual display.

[Martinned]

Sure, Jan.

[bernard11]

Why?

Why isn't it just turned over to the Air Force to be used as Air Force One?

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure what the basis for this claim is or why it would be plausible. Either the aircraft in question has reached EOL — in which case why would Trump be using it for the next 3½ years? — or it hasn't — in which case why it would it given away by the U.S. government when it's still needed and serviceable?

[Bob from Ohio]

What's the basis of your claim that its to be flown?

[David Nieporent]

What else does one do with a plane, plant radishes in it?

[Bob from Ohio]

Display it in a museum, which is what a presidential library is.

We have a lot in a museum on the Mall in DC. Or in Seattle. Or at Wright-Patterson AF base.

You don't have any evidence that it will be flown, just animus towards Trump.

[David Nieporent]

I misinterpreted what you were asking, because it didn't respond to the post of mine to which you replied. Why would the U.S. Air Force give away a needed and perfectly serviceable plane to put in a museum?

Brett linked to a story about an earlier AF1 plane in a presidential library, Reagan's. But that was not given to the library until it reached the end of its service, 16 years after Reagan left office; they didn't take it out of use so that Reagan could charge admission to see it.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, again, this is a USED plane from Quatar, which is planned to be taken out of service when Boeing finally delivers the NEW AFI they got a contract to build.

But, yeah, the optics are bad, and anybody but Trump would realize that, or at least care.

[bernard11]

And, again, this is a USED plane from Quatar, which is planned to be taken out of service when Boeing finally delivers the NEW AFI they got a contract to build.

It's 13 years old, so it likely has more than four years of useful life left and should work well past the end of Trump's term.

Given that, it seems odd to me that it is going to the Trump library rather than being kept as AF1.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why would the U.S. Air Force give away a needed and perfectly serviceable plane to put in a museum?"

Because DT wants a shiny tourist attraction for his library and he, not the Air Force, decides such things right now.

Supposedly the two new planes will be ready by then.

[shawn_dude]

DT would get continued use of it, funded by his library, post-presidency (assuming he doesn't extend his second term indefinitely.)

Air Force One is a lot more than just a plane. Anything sent to use by Qatar is going to have to be dismantled, checked, rebuilt, and then filled with all the secret tech these planes get due to their unique function. We have oodles of existing planes we could do this to without having a foreign government with links to Hamas giving us one.

[bernard11]

Plagiarize much, Publius?

[Don Nico]

I wish that the OLC and DOJ would have found excuses to reject the gift from Qatar which has been the moneybags for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The "gift" is just another effort to pull the wool over the already shut eyes of US administrations.

[bernard11]

I wish that the OLC and DOJ would have found excuses to reject the gift from Qatar which has been the moneybags for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

How did you gauge the likelihood of that happening?

[grb]

bernard11 : "How did you gauge the likelihood of that happening?"

As many have noted, Bondi's job prior to becoming Matt Gaetz's replacement was - yes - paid lobbyist for Qatar. So right off the bat, you know she wasn't going to say a word against that country's bribe or Trump's score.

And please remember : Trump picked Bondi because he'd successfully bribed her in the past. She's a settled commodity with a known price tag. But that's not all! DJT paid-off Bondi from his fake charity, the Trump Foundation. Of course that was an illegal source for any kind of political donation, so she had to return her own damn bribe. You'd think a Florida AG would see that coming, but apparently not.

And whatya wanna bet Trump didn't find that particularly endearing? To bribe a pol, get the contracted service, and then have your bribe refunded must surely appeal to his criminal nature.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/pam-bondi-donald-trump-donation

[Don Nico]

around zero.

[Speaking for normal people]

ONe of the most public secret gifts I've ever seen. Get a hobby

[Kazinski]

Despite saying above that people shouldn't be arrested for there opinions, there isn't any reason not to arrest a congresswoman for assault of, and interfering with a federal officer.

Pretty chaotic and dangerous situation at the NJ ICE facility, in fact I've seen unarmed protesters shot for less trying to breach another federal building. In this case the federal officers kept their cool and arrested one protester, but there should be other arrests based on the video.

DHS spokesperson threatens arrests of House Democrats who were at N.J. ICE facility
Tricia McLaughlin accused members of Congress of assaulting and even body-slamming ICE officers. A congresswoman who was present denied the allegation

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/dhs-spokesperson-threatens-arrests-house-democrats-nj-ice-facility-rcna206052

You can see the assault in this video:
https://youtu.be/NPQ5tZeR3_s?si=BUYk6paLdbfI6YJP

[Martinned]

Of course. Arresting opposition members of the legislature is all fine.

[Kazinski]

Only if they clearly break the law.

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;"

The video clearly shows an assault which is a breach of the peace.

No one is above the law, or so I've heard.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is this "no one" of whom you speak?

[Martinned]

No one is above the law, or so I've heard.

I don't know where you might have heard that. Certainly not on this blog, where the consensus in the comments for the last few years has been that even a candidate for political office or a former office-holder shouldn't be arrested or prosecuted under any circumstances.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I don't know where you might have heard that."
Probably from Lucretia James for example?

[Martinned]

Surely you're not suggesting that Kaz might care what she thinks about anything?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What are you talking about? There is a broad consensus that some former candidates/officeholders should be prosecuted. But there is disagreement over which candidates/officeholders.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Felony and Breach of the Peace" means any criminal case.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, I guess you bought the caption, instead of the full video context. The full video shows the Mayor of Newark, and 3 members of Congress, doing basically nothing but hanging out in a public space, while waiting for permission they had applied for to proceed further. Then, those officials, there in a public space, on official business, were rushed and assaulted in a coordinated attack by what seem to be agents of 3 separate law enforcement agencies. An attempt by members of Congress to tightly surround the mayor as he is being inexplicably attacked by law enforcement, for no apparent reason, is what you characterize as an assault on law enforcement.

Once again, your representations on this blog turn out to be lies. A question whether those lies are intended by you, or by others you should stop attending to, only charity to you at this point can justify. At this point it has happened too often to cede you any claim to be credible.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Stop resisting!

[ThePublius]

You're full of it, Stephen. The mayor had no authority to enter the facility, and no permission, yet persisted in attempting to enter. The congress people there became physically violent when denied access.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius — I have heard, but do not swear to be accurately informed about the following:

The facility is privately owned, not a government building;

The facility is in an area not zoned for the use;

They Mayor at least employs people who do have authority to enter and inspect the facility;

The Mayor was attempting at the time to arrange with the operator a tour of the facility, and not in any way trying to force his way in.

I could see with my own eyes by viewing the entire tape that the Mayor was doing nothing to try to enter the facility, or even to approach its entrance, when he was rushed by law enforcement officers.

The law enforcement officers looked:

Untrained and chaotic in their approach;

Incapable to manage basic arrest scene control;

Incapable or untrained to work coherently as a group;

Masked in many instances;

Heavily armed;

Dressed variously and confusingly, with insignia of at least 3 agencies showing on uniforms;

So obese in some instances that they were capable to walk only with difficulty, let alone to do anything to further an arrest—in short except for ill-fitting items of clothing showing insignia, some did not look like law enforcement officers at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

The politicians here didn't have to claim that the badgecam footage was fabricated because it supported their version of events, you should be able to figure out that much.

[bernard11]

Get serious, Kazinski. The video doesn't clearly show anything. The pushing and shoving, which we can hardly see, is completely out of context.

Without a clearer video, and without seeing how the whole thing started, we learn nothing about the incident.

[Sarcastr0]

The main thing this shows us is who on here is eager to see an escalation to jailing the opposition.

Not too many surprises there.

[Kazinski]

Actually I want a descalation. Having democratic congressmen show up at federal facilities with mobs and trying to push there way in is not something that should continue.

Show up to demonstrate all you want, or arrange a tour and come with an aide, great.

But hard to escalate harder than than saying "We are at War, then trying to break into a federal detention facility and assaulting officers:

We Are at WAR!" Rep. LaMonica McIver speaks at "Stop Musk Coup" Protest in Washington DC

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uD5WCP5uFQM

Demonstrate but stay within the law, and encourage your supporters to stay within the law too, not tell them that its a war. Don't go over the line after saying there is no line if you want the benefit of the doubt.

[Sarcastr0]

You're in bad faith.

You're not here for de-escalation if you only look left.

And above you are pretty clearly cheering for arrest of Democrats. Also you do it below, to bernard, pushing back on his asking to see the full context!

You are not shy about what you want, and how the facts aren't what's driving it.
Lying about it here doesn't change that.

[Kazinski]

No insurrections to the left?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — That's pathetic. You are trying to retail a whatabout when you don't even have one in stock.

It's like the imaginary loss leader car deal, which turns out never to be available when you get to the lot.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, apparently we're now in a year where violent acts against law enforcement caught on camera must be put "in context" and subjected to endless wrangling over "who started it." So hard to keep track.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll put you down on the jail the opposition side.

"violent acts." Really showing your authoritarian ass.

[Life of Brian]

"Put me down" wherever floats your boat, ya tribal putz. We just came out of years of "jail the opposition" over walking through a friggin building. Congresscritters don't get some sort of ruling-class exemption to play vigilante.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Life of Brian — Another commenter either too reckless, or too mendacious to take seriously. Treating Brian politely does not help. Muted.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, the horror.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I really don't know how I'm going to make it through the day now that I've apparently lost the prospect of being Lathroped.

[bernard11]

The context needed is what happened before the melee began.

I'm also curious as to why they were denied entry.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'll put you down on the jail the opposition side. "

The make of this statement supported all 4 of the Trump criminal cases.

[Michael Ejercito]

While opposing arresting violent rioters who attacked a federal courthouse.

[Kazinski]

I would be interested in seeing the context that justifies pushing Federal Agents when they are trying to make an arrest and deny access to a federal facility.

But you are right, the jury should consider the context.

[bernard11]

I too would like to see a video of the entire incident. Unfortunately this one isn't it, and it really doesn't show much.

Believe it or not I generally disapprove of shoving and hitting, even if my side is doing it, but I would like to know what happened before the shoving shown.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Without a clearer video, and without seeing how the whole thing started, we learn nothing about the incident."

I'm sure we'll learn plenty about the incident at the trial, and if the government can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the mayor and congresscritters will be acquitted.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What a sucker. There is not going to be a trial. And nothing bad is going to happen to the Mayor, or to the Congress people. The entire scene was performative Homeland Security theater. All made up without justification.

[Michael Ejercito]

How do you deduce this?

[TwelveInchPianist]

And there it is.

Democrat members of the legislature are above the law!

[Speaking for normal people]

Logic 101, that ONLY is relevant if it matters. You can't say that because someone is opposition that they can't be arrested. But of course you say dumb sht like that on here a lot.
AOC said 'come and get me" because she knows people like you exempt her from any wrongdoing

[tylertusta]

I wish the US government would stop the fence-sitting on India and Pakistan.

The sooner DC realizes that Pakistan is not worth our time, the better off we will all be.

[Commenter_XY]

Edan Alexander coming home after 584 days in captivity.

Thank you, POTUS Trump.

[Kazinski]

Trump had an OK weekend, but India and Pakistan are the big winners.

Although the NY Times is trying to downplay it a little:

"As Truce Seems to Hold, India and Pakistan Both Claim Victory
The Trump administration’s public descriptions of its role in the mediation seemed to touch some sensitive spots politically in India."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/11/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-ceasefire.html

Indian sources seem a little more upbeat:

"In a new post via his social media platform, 'Truth Social', Trump thanked the leaders of India and Pakistan for understanding that “it [was] time to stop the current aggression” and said their legacies had been “greatly enhanced” by their “brave actions.”

"I am very proud of the strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership of India and Pakistan for having the strength, wisdom, and fortitude to fully know and understand that it was time to stop the current aggression that could have lead to to the death and destruction of so many, and so much. Millions of good and innocent people could have died! Your legacy is greatly enhanced by your brave actions," Trump wrote.

Referring to the US role in brokering the deal, Trump added that he would substantially increase trade with both countries, even as his administration continues to impose global tariffs — including on India and Pakistan."

https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2025/May/11/trump-promises-increased-trade-praises-india-pakistan-leaders-wisdom-in-new-post-after-ceasefire

[Martinned]

the US role in brokering the deal

Seriously? Last week Trump didn't even seem to know where Pakistan was, and now you're going to let him get away with claiming credit for this non-ceasefire.

[Frank Drackman]

Pakistan is a country that’s being recognized more and more I notice

[Kazinski]

Well Pakistan seems to know who he is:

Pakistan welcomes Trump's offer to mediate Kashmir dispute after India ceasefire
PM Shehbaz thanks US president for "invaluable offer" to play role in bringing lasting peace to South Asia

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1310582-pakistan-welcomes-trumps-offer-to-mediate-kashmir-dispute-after-india-ceasefire

[Martinned]

Gee, I wonder why the authorities in Pakistan concluded that flattering Trump might be a good idea.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I'm cool with India and Pakistan not going to war, even if it makes Trump look better. You should be, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Pretty obvious that to certain people nothing Trump does would "make him look better" (well short of being removed from office, dying or resigning).

[Martinned]

1. Trump didn't do anything.
2. When Trump does do something, it invariably makes him look worse.

So, yeah?

[Frank Drackman]

Sometimes not doing anything is the best thing you can do (HT Y. Berra)

[Speaking for normal people]

I saw Biden on the View and I think what a fool Bumble must be to think saying that Trump isn't Biden is a put-down !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks troll. Want to point to where I said that?

[Kazinski]

Martinned was waiting was waiting for Starmer or Macron to step up and broker a ceasefire, but I don't think they have the juice, maybe Meloni could have pulled it off.

It certainly wasn't going to be Xi or Putin, or Carney.

[Martinned]

If it was going to be anyone it was going to be Xi. But as it happens, India and Pakistan have decades of experience ramping tensions up and down. No need for an ignorant American baboon to get involved.

[Sarcastr0]

The day after Vance said it was none of America's business, Trump pushed on an open door and took credit.

No one much cares, except for cheerleaders like Kaz.

[tylertusta]

If it was going to be anyone it was going to be Xi

This is classified under "things that would never happen."

[Sarcastr0]

Flat wrong - China would love to supplant the US as the peace-broker of the world, and is trying to take credit here.

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202505/12/WS6821be6ba310a04af22bed4c.html

[tylertusta]

Flat wrong

No. Xi may or may not want to try to claim credit for it, but India would sooner go to war against both at the same time than accept a Chinese-brokered cease fire.

India's hostile relationship with China goes back nearly as far as India's hostile relationship with Pakistan. Perhaps India would start listening to China if Xi gave back the parts of Kashmir that the PRC currently occupies. Look up Aksai Chin.

That's why India accepted the American proposal and didn't care for whatever China said on the matter.

Here's a map of Kashmir for context:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Kashmir_region._LOC_2003626427_-_showing_sub-regions_administered_by_different_countries.jpg/1280px-Kashmir_region._LOC_2003626427_-_showing_sub-regions_administered_by_different_countries.jpg

[Sarcastr0]

IIRC China and India are pretty strong trading partners; I think you're being pretty reductive in your characterization here.

You're the one that wants us to step back from the area, right? Who do you think would fill that space?

India may not like dealing with China, but we're doing what we can to force them into one another's arms.

[tylertusta]

... reductive ...

You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.

Trade by itself does not make countries into friends. One need only examine the Sino-American relations today to understand that. Our economies are intimately linked yet we're a few short years away from shooting at each other over Taiwan.

History is littered with other examples of trading partners that warred with each other. Here's another: Before WW1, many thought that a major war in Europe was impossible as the economic ties because it would ruin the economies of everybody. See the The Great Illusion.

Trade does not stop wars because other factors inevitably outweigh it. The Brits and Germans were trading partners until Germany's invasion of Belgium and a potential German hegemony over the continent directly threatened British security, hence their intervention in WW1.

You're the one that wants us to step back from the area, right?

I said that the US needs to stop fence-sitting. That doesn't mean that we get out of the area. That means that we pick a side instead of trying to pick both sides. The US trying to be friends to both has hurt our ability to be friends with either.

Pakistan has proven to be not only unreliable, but has provided assistance to our enemies in the midst of a shooting war.

but we're doing what we can to force them into one another's arms.

Hahahahaha. Nice one.

Trump has already made progress in bringing India into our orbit. India needs equipment to counter China's arming of Pakistan.

The F-35 agreement that Trump got India to agree to was for India to not only counter China's own stealth aircraft based along the border with India, but also to counter China's sale of J-35 fighters to Pakistan.

[David Nieporent]

Our economies are intimately linked yet we're a few short years away from shooting at each other over Taiwan.

Um, that's because Trump is doing everything he can to delink said economies.

[tylertusta]

An addendum:

If you're interested in learning about the region and the international relations of India, Pakistan, China, USSR/Russia, and the United States, I recommend a lecture series from Sarah Paine on Youtube.

https://youtu.be/LbkO84MsmyM

[tylertusta]

Um, that's because Trump is doing everything he can to delink said economies.

Since your world revolves around Trump, and since you think that he is the root of all evil, it makes sense that you would say this.

China's military buildup predated Trump's first term and was such a problem that Obama made his 'pivot to asia' before Trump descended the escalator in 2015.

China's buildup is clearly aimed at expanding their regional control to break through what they perceive as an encirclement. In China's view, India is part of the encirclement, as is Taiwan.

Our conflict with China will be over Taiwan. China has spent the past decade and a half making all of the preparations they need to blockade or invade Taiwan. The invasion timetable has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the political imperative for the CCP to be seen as finishing off Taiwan. The timetable has been moved up due to impending collapse of the Chinese demography and economy, which is why China built invasion barges during the Biden administration and not as a result of tariffs that hadn't happened yet.

[Bob from Ohio]

This is classified under "things that would never happen."

No joke. Pakistan is a Chines client state and gets its weapons from China.

India would agree to Xi only if it had already lost a nuclear war. Maybe not even then!

[tylertusta]

I think the reason why some believe that India and China are warming up to each other is because of the BRICS hype. BRICS is all hype, and in practice it's a joke.

India and China last fought over Kashmir just five years ago, resulting in the deaths of nearly two dozen Indian soldiers.

The idea that India would accept a Chinese-brokered cease fire over Kashmir is just laughable.

[Kazinski]

Yeah I missed a "not" there.

China is completely unacceptable as an honest broker to India.

[John F. Carr]

Al Jazeera says Pakistan won. Al Jazeera may be a bit biased.

[Kazinski]

It was obvious neither side wanted war, although probably there are large factions of Hindu and Islamic radicals that would love one.

India felt it had to retaliate for the terrorist attack last month, Pakistan felt it had to retaliate against the retaliation, but neither side wanted a real war.

They both just needed a face saving way to stop before it got out of hand.

They both won by not fighting.

[Martinned]

It looks like the Dutch government is pivoting on Israel/Palestine: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-853358

For reference, this is what it says in the EU-Israel association agreement:

Article 1
2. The aims of this Agreement are:
(...) to encourage regional cooperation with a view to the consolidation of peaceful coexistence and economic and political stability (...)

Article 2
Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internaland international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.

https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/israel/documents/eu_israel/asso_agree_en.pdf

[Michael P]

Remember who has taken over the Dutch streets: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/12/europe/amsterdam-riot-police-soccer-violence-intl/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/24/europe/dutch-soccer-riots-men-sentenced-intl/index.html

[Martinned]

Ajax lost 3-0 this weekend, so I don't think you have to worry about hooligans drinking too much. Then again, I don't know why you mention it anyway, given that it has nothing to do with the Dutch policy about Israel.

[SRG2]

Whar happened to Dutch football? I can't remember the last time anyone thought, "damn, we've been drawn in the same group as Ajax"?

[Martinned]

Ajax was great in 2019, but the perpetual problem is how to be consistently good when all your best players leave when they're in their early 20s. And they haven't managed that.

[SRG2]

It's tough. I think that the commercial success of football, particularly the Premiership, has distorted national leagues elsewhere. Mid-table English clubs can afford €20mm and up to buy players, and can retain players worth €50mm+, It's not just Barca/Real/PSG/Man Cheaty/Liverpool etc who can buy your best players. Half the Premiership clubs can do so.

[Martinned]

Dutch football has been in that position for decades. (And certainly since Bosman.)

Which is of course the interesting legal question: Will we ever see any consequences of the ECJ's Diarra judgment? https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/ecj-decision-diarra-case-some-fifas-players-transfer-rules-are-incompatible-eu-law

[jb]

Speck in the eye, no?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42943824

[Michael P]

If you're going to whatabout, you might as well go a little more recent and quote CNN's coverage of the "fiery but mostly peaceful" riots in 2020.

But those riots didn't take a position on Israel vs Muslim colonists.

[jb]

Oh, sorry. I didn't look at the date since the exact same thing just happened a few months ago: https://abc7ny.com/post/philadelphia-eagles-fans-riot-dozens-arrested-win-super-bowl-pennsylvania-police-say/15889425/

[Frank Drackman]

Why is Mahmoud Khal-Kill still in jail? (And not back in Syria where he belongs)

[Frank Drackman]

Approaching the 5th Anniversary of the OD death of Floyd George, and I’ve got just 1 question
Anyone know what happened to his Mercedes? Asking for a friend

Frank

[ReaderY]

Herr Hitler managed ro persuade President Hindenberg to suspend German civil liberties less than 2 months after becoming Chancellor. In floating suspension four months after becoming President, Trump is operating more slowly than Hitler. But it should now be clear beyond all question that he is following the same path.

Exactly like Hitler, Trump is using claims that the country is under attack by an enemy - Hitler’s initial enemies were the Communists - to justify suspending civil liberties. And like Hitler, nobody should be so naive as to think that this suspension will be limited to the designated enemy. If he succeeds, it will be used to seize power and deport his political opponents, including judges who have ruled against him as his Mother’s Day message suggests, to those Central American concentration camps he has arranged to be set up to receive them.

Nobody should doubt this any more. Whether the Republic survives now depends on whether lower-level officials will obey Trump, or whether enough of them will obey the courts. It is not clear which way they will go. Trump has been doing his best to replace people loyal to the Republic with people personally loyal to him.

Chancelor Hitler was careful to follow the letter of the Weimar Constitution in converting the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich. President Trump may simply be less conscientious about such niceties than Hitler was. He may not have to be. If his legal strategy fails, January 6 shows he is perfectly capable of pursuing an extra-legal strategy.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out that Hitler had Bone Spurs and didn't drink Alcohol

[Michael P]

Donald Trump is worse than Hitler because at least Hitler served in the military, and Hitler still had the Chancellor above him when he started. Nobody should doubt this any more.

[Frank Drackman]

Hitler did kill millions of Russians though

[Michael P]

The Russians were doing a pretty good job of that by themselves. Let's not forget his greatest contribution to the world: He also killed Hitler.

[Riva]

Was President Lincoln Hitler too, little Readery? Hitler before Hitler was even a glint in the milkman’s eye and long before idiot trolls or Godwin’s law existed.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump isn't "America's Hitler", despite what JD Vance(TM) once infamously claimed.

(Ironically, I suspect JD Vance(TM) would be more likely than Trump to actually carry through with something like this.)

[ReaderY]

I acknowledge there has been a lot of crying wolf over the years. But sometimes the wolf actually comes. And as the late Justice Scalia put it, this wolf comes as a wolf.

Trump has in fact engaged in both words and behavior remarkably similar to Hitler’s in the first few months of his administration. He is seeking a permanent Prssidency. (have you seen all the the Trump 2028 posters). He has focused the public’s attention on designated enemies, foreigners who are supposedly destroying the country. He is not-too-subtly attempting to base the concept of membership in the nation on purity of blood. He has denounced people loyal to the old Republic’s constitution as traitors. And he is seriously talking about suspending civil liberties.

This is the real thing. It’s serious stuff.

[Riva]

Not a lot of “crying wolf,” but just a shit load of plain, flat out lies, fraud, and massive abuses of government prosecutorial powers. All directed at destroying the democrat’s main political opponent. There are fascistic abuses in this repulsive story and they all relate to the conduct of democrats and their paid activist supporters.

[SRG2]

Ah, the tyranny of trying to stop a tyrant. The replicans went along with almost every unqualified loyalist Trump nominated for positions in his regime. Fealty to the regime matters more than competence, experience, and knowledge.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fancy that, the opposing party didn't like Trump's nominees. So freaking what? If you want nominees you like, you have to win the election.

[SRG2]

I do not expect that a GOP president's nominees agree with me on policy. I am entitled to expect that they meet the minimum standards for the position. Are you so stupid or blind that you think that, say, Hegseth or RFKjr were qualified for the positions to which they've been appointed? Crowing about winning elections is a separate issue.

I know that "owning the libs" has become another right-wing sacrament but this genuflection to loyalist incompetence will damage everyone, not just "libs".

[Brett Bellmore]

After four years of an administration that didn't even demand basic sanity in its nominees, let alone competence, I don't really care. Wake me when RFK Jr or Hegseth start parading around in stolen dresses.

[David Nieporent]

Wake me when RFK Jr or Hegseth start parading around in stolen dresses.

RFKJ would need many years of psychiatric treatment — more years than he likely has left at his age — before his sanity improved to that level.

As for Hegseth, nobody thinks he's crazy. Just drunk, unqualified, and incompetent.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure do hate trans people, but they do professional work just fine.

Basic bigotry won't get you to the real-world impacts we're seeing right now.

Putting a chemtrails anti-vax quack in charge of NIH turns out to have real consequences. So does putting an erratic guy who can't follow basic security protocols in charge of DoD.

[SRG2]

Translation: because Biden did it badly, it's okay if Trump does it worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think nominating sane people is actually a lower bar to clear than nominating people so competent that even the opposition party must admit their competence.

[grb]

Let’s review some of RFK Jr's favorite tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories:

1. Vaccines cause autism.
2. Covid was engineered to spare Jews.
3. HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
4. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are Covid cures.
5. 5G wireless is used to ‘control our behavior’
6. Antidepressants cause mass shootings
7 Government employees want to ‘mass poison’ the American public.
8. The coronavirus vaccines were the ‘deadliest vaccine ever made’
9. Children gender identity issues are caused by water.

Not a comprehensive list, to be sure. But most conspiracy loons are equal-opportunity gullible; they never get enough. But that list should disqualify anyone from a healthcare-related post. And that's before you learn RFK Jr rejects the germ theory of disease. He did so in writing. In his own damn book.

But to Brett? All that matters is whether he ever wore a dress...

[Sarcastr0]

You're also reaching way down the org chart to try and make an equivalence.

Cabinet level is not the same as and Assistant Secretary.

And you point to no evidence of *actual incompetent actions.* Just your bigotry against trans people.

As though they can't do jobs.
Brett, no one really claims trans people can do jobs. You're really on the leading edge of bigotry on this.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Cabinet level is not the same as and Assistant Secretary"

The last time this arose, someone dug up the Assistant Secretary's CV. Turns out, she had a long record of stellar credentials that made her exceptionally qualified for the job. When this was pointed out to Brett he couldn't care less. He hates trans people therefore they shouldn't have jobs.

Personally, I'd even be happy if Trump only restricted himself to naming incompetent and unqualified people. Instead, he's the first president ever to treat cabinet-level positions as trolling jokes. A sleazy pedophile as Attorney General? A wack-job loon to run HHS? One of Putin and Assad's favorite parrots as DNI? Or what about that grifter who sold worthless pills to gullible dupes, telling them they're “Mrna detox, reverse the vaxx n get healthy”.

That conman was the trolling pick for our nation's premier law enforcement agency.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/trump-fbi-director-kash-patel-vaccine-detox-supplements-rcna182434

[Brett Bellmore]

"And you point to no evidence of *actual incompetent actions.* Just your bigotry against trans people."

Parading around in stolen dresses, Sarcastr0. It's bigoted of me to object to the guy stealing luggage? And where did you get the idea that Brinton was trans? He was a cross dresser, a kleptomaniac, and a lot of other crazy stuff, but I never heard that about him.

Your problem is thinking that his stealing luggage so that he could wear stolen women's dresses instead of buying them, was somehow unrelated to his being nuttier than a fruitcake. When his kleptomania was actually part of his being crazy.

We don't avoid putting the guy who thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte in a position of responsibility because it's inconvenient that he wears a silly hat and tucks his hand into his shirt, Sarcastr0. We do it because psychoses travel in packs, being nuts in just one isolated way isn't something you should expect.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh. My mistake. I didn't think you were reaching all the fuck down to 'deputy assistant secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy.'

Cherry pick harder, you tool.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And you point to no evidence of *actual incompetent actions.* Just your bigotry against trans people."

Did you read the Alabama AG's brief in Skrmetti about how Lavine politically influenced the WPATH standards of care?

[Riva]

Well, I'll certainly concede gov't funded Democrat leaning activist "non-profit" NGOs pay well to attack Democrat opponents and further the Democrat agenda. Or is that agenda driven by the activist NGOs? Corruption can be so confusing. And probably should have used past tense since President Trump stopped their grifting.

[SRG2]

So only Replicans should be allowed to grift. Got it.

[ReaderY]

Plenty of Hitler’s supporters similarly pooh-poohed claims he was dangerous as a bunch of overblown hooey.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, they thought he was LESS dangerous than Stalin's Commies, and they initially were right. But what they overlooked was the angst of what should have been a German middle class.

This usually devolves into "it was the Jew's fault" and that is NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT what I mean. And the majority of the German elite weren't even Jewish in the first place.

But it was the same basic dynamics as underlay the American Revolution, and the British there (and French here) got too greedy and wound up with a problem they didn't need.

The economic situation in Germany was intentable -- Woodrow Wilson correctly predicted WWII -- and imagine a Hitler who was bright enough to (a) direct the resources wasted on the two battleships into submarines and (b) not invade Russia, or do it the following April with massive stockpiles on the border.

I've also seen the claim that Hitler wasn't planning to start the war until 1942 or '43 and that Mussolini forced him to start it earlier.

FDR thought that Huey Long was the "most dangerous man in America" and how'd that wind up?

[ReaderY]

No, “serious” people thought him a complete buffoon, obviously incompetent, someone who couldn’t and needed be taken seriously. Intellectuals’ reaction to Hitler was actually quite similar to their reaction to Trump.

Journalists regularly dismissed him as a nobody.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/03/hitler-press-germany/682130/

[SRG2]

As I've said before, Trump isn't Hitler, but, first, Hitler wasn't HITLER in 1932 and second, how many of the cultists would have voted for Hitler in 1932/3? Almost every last pro-Trump poster here would have done, either dismissing Hitler's own words as rhetorical excess or taking them seriously and voting for him because of what he said.

The economic recovery/boom under Hitler would not have reduced their support for him - so what if there's a Dachau or two? That's for "those people".

From which I conclude that it will not be Trump's attempt at becoming a dictator that will turn off the cultists here and elsewhere. It will be when Trump fails to deliver on his economic promises. If he did, they would not mind if he set up a Dachau-on-the-Mississippi. Hell, they'd cheer it.

[ReaderY]

As Trump accurately boasted in his first election campaign, if he shot somebody on Fifth Avenue and somebody tried to prosecute him for it, you and people like you would say exactly the same thing.

[apedad]

The Hitler-Trump comparison isn't appropriate.

Hitler had a long-range detailed plan (he wrote a book about it).

Trump's just winging it, jumping from issue to issue at whatever whim or whoever has his ear at the moment.

Just look at Trump's entire career; Trump casinos, Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, Trump wine, Trump "branding," etc.

He's just a guy looking for a buck - AND NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT - but he has zero strategic or long-range vision, including now.
Trump University, Trump

[Martinned]

He's just a guy looking for a buck - AND NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT

There would be nothing wrong with that if he wasn't an (elected) official. As it is, there are a lot of things wrong with that.

[David Nieporent]

Well, that, plus when he was a private citizen he didn't care whether the way he got the bucks was legal.

[ReaderY]

Interesting to learn that Trump took control of the Republican Party, converted its membership into acolytes, got rid of most of its leadership and converted the rest, etc. etc. etc. by sheer random accident. He was just sort of wandering around aimlessly and it all just kind of happened.

Even more interesting to learn that Project 2025 was just a happenstance product of monkeys with typewriters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: Franklin Roosevelt who did the exact same thing...

[Brett Bellmore]

They've never quite figured out how to square the claim that Trump is an existential threat to democracy with the claim that he's a total moron who just spasms around randomly. I don't think the disconnect between these claims even bothers them.

[David Nieporent]

Those aren't even remotely incompatible. Destroying things doesn't take competence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like hell it doesn't. Destroying little things that are right at hand doesn't take competence and planning. Destroying a country? Sure would! Incompetence wouldn't even be able to get in a position to get started...

[David Nieporent]

Naw; any moron can throw a rock through a window or pour some gasoline and light a match.

[Brett Bellmore]

And if you could destroy a country by throwing a brick, you might have something like a point.

[David Nieporent]

Gavrilo Princip destroyed a continent with two bullets.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Incompetence wouldn't even be able to get in a position to get started..."

Really? Take presidential elections as an example. Donald Trump tried to steal an election he lost, caused damage to the institutional safeguards securing the election process, poisoned American public opinion on election security with endless lying, prompted dozens of imitators at every level trying to work-around the vote results.

Yet Trump's attempted election theft was the work of a "total moron" in practice. He was a clumsy clownish imbecile every step of the way. His overall planning was nonexistent. His messaging was scattershot huckster gibberish. His people were a mix of buffoons, losers, and flakes. His assumption that everyone (SCOUS to lowly state election officials) were just as corrupt as himself was blind idiot narcissism.

But why bother going back that far? We're still early in Trump's presidency and here's what we've seen: Trump strangling the U.S. economy because he's too f**king stupid to know what a tariff is. Trump gutting scientific research because those eggheads must be on the other side. Trump trampling on the Constitution because MAGA finds that entertaining. The government "cut" by DOGE opening doors at random and tossing in a fragmentation grenade. Then they issue documentation on their actions that are all lies and fantasy math.

There's a lot of useless pointless damage in all that, but not a trace of intelligence, discipline, focus or planning. The never-ending farce following Liberation Day leads the way in brainless incompetence, but it has plenty of company.

[ReaderY]

Not so. Hitler had an act which caused conventional politicians to think him incompetent and not take him seriously. It was an act. Many of the folks who didn’t take him seriously were dead, in exile, or in a cocentration camp within a year or too.

I don’t know if Trump’s act is quite as good as Hitler’s was; Hitler was a genius at feigning incompetence to allay suspicion and keep his opponents off their guard while he prepared to sink the death blow. But Trump’s act is very, very good, far better than merely competent.

It required a great deal of competence to destroy the Weimar Republic. It will require a great deal of competence to destroy the American Republic. I am by no means sanguine that Trump is not up to doing the job. I think his successful takeover of the Republican Party demonstates his potential for competence of such endeavors.

He is incompetent to run the country only in the way that Gordon Ghekko was incompetent to run a manufacturing plant. He is every bit as competent to use this country’s assets for his ends as Gordon Ghekko was to use the manufacturing plant’s assets - real estate, pension fund balance, etc. - for his.

[ReaderY]

As a measure of Trump’s competence, consider how badly Trump’s act fooled you. He’s quite good at it.

[bernard11]

He is every bit as competent to use this country’s assets for his ends as Gordon Ghekko was to use the manufacturing plant’s assets - real estate, pension fund balance, etc. - for his.

You mean he's good at theft?

[ReaderY]

It’s like calling Bernie Madoff an incompetent fund manager. He wasn’t just a competent fund manager. He was in many ways a brilliant one. One can object to the ends to which he directed his intelligence. But one can’t call him stupid.

Also, Trump aims to be a great leader on the model of Louis XIV. As Louis XIV put it, “L’Etat, c’est moi.” You can’t steal from yourself. Just as Louis XIV, as France personified, used France’s money for France’s benefit, Mr. Trump, as the United States personified, intends to use the United States’ money for the United States’ benefit. De Tocqueville famously called America a nation of legal fictions. Trump is a thorough legal realist who would regard De Tocquville as a communist subversive. He does not believe in any legal fictions, except the ones he tells.

[bernard11]

Toddlers can be quite destructive if they are allowed to act on their whims. They usually don't have plans.

Trump acting on his whims, ignorance, and bigotry is extremely destructive, simply because he has the powers of the Presidency (and more than that, according to some) at his command. He needs no plan, any more than the toddler, or a tornado.

[bernard11]

Considering the power of the Presidency, just spasming around randomly can do quite a bit of damage.

[Kazinski]

Almost like Warren Buffett, Elon Musk, etc.

A lot of investors and businessmen, both successful and unsuccessful have their fingers in a lot of pies.

What does tie Trump's ventures together is he built a brand, and then tried to leverage it into other area's where a brand name is more important than the intrinsic value of the product.

Like Steve Jobs did with Apple.

[Speaking for normal people]

I might use this in class , it is so stupid. A country can't be under attack because if it is and you do anyting you are Hitler. Yeah, class will like this

[Krayt]

Freedom is commonly lost by the people letting the executive have emergency powers to deal with things. They then use the emergency powers to lock down control.

This is such a common lesson from history, and probably the greatest one to learn, for those who love freedom, that George Lucas used it as the background intrigue for the Star Wars prequels.

The "phantom menace" was manipulating the Trade Federation dispute into a military emergency. It was nothing of the sort. Of course, the non-phantom menace was the emperor aborning who pushed it all, then, "regrettably", accepted the emergency powers, but just "until the crisis was over". Cheers all around the legislature!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rome was conquered by unarmed (by Roman standards) invaders...

[Krayt]

They had a looooong history. They had a rule returning generals were not allowed to bring their armies into the city, for crap just like this.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, why exactly did he break that rule? WHY did he cross the Rubicon? He had a motive, you know.

It was pretty much the same motive Trump had for running for President again in 2024, instead of retiring to the links: If he hadn't he'd have been destroyed by his enemies.

[bernard11]

Rome was conquered by unarmed (by Roman standards) invaders...

Not true.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Rome was conquered by unarmed (by Roman standards) invaders...

Remember folks, he doesn’t make things up!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Exactly like Hitler, Trump"

Oh, a Hitler comparison again. And at Lathrop length!

[Krayt]

Next thing you know, people will suggest he prefers giving up the Sudetenland to Hitler rather than help the stomped on country defend against Hitler!

[Armchair]

More insurrection by Democrats against the legitimate authority of the United States. This time in Massachusetts. Democratic politician incites crowd to attack federal law enforcement officers.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/05/insurrection-in-massachusetts.php

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Should it be punished?

[ThePublius]

How can you even ask that question, unless you are totally ignorant of the circumstances? Did you read the article, at least? The Worcester city councilwoman not only incited violence at the scene, she assaulted law enforcement personnel:

"This councilor participated in the conduct of the unruly crowd and eventually assaulted both Worcester police and federal law enforcement officers on scene. Her behavior also emboldened others to act in this manner."

Now what do you think?

[Sarcastr0]

As a wise man once said: "You're a gullible dupe for believing the lying media on this story. Why not look into a bit rather than just swallow this nonsense?"

[Michael P]

Denialist employees his usual tactics. News at ... never, because everyone expects it.

[ThePublius]

I watched the video, you dope!

[Sarcastr0]

Did you? It's not linked in your powerline article. And it does not look very violent.

Do you believe that this lays the predicate for anything criminal:
“Etel Haxhiaj incited aggression towards the police during the incident. This councilor participated in the conduct of the unruly crowd and eventually assaulted both Worcester police and federal law enforcement officers on scene. Her behavior also emboldened others to act in this manner."

I know you want the left 'taken care of, hopefully harshly' from a previous comment. I think you wish for an ideological crackdown may be causing you to exaggerate the issue here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The standard is Jan 6th, and that wasn't very violent on an individual basis. And as they were denied bail, why not here?

[Anony262]

What sort of due process is actually required in the immigration context? I know from experience that due process in other, non-criminal matters is far less than the process a person can expect in criminal matters. Take, for example, Title IX proceedings in college settings. At many schools, the respondent can have counsel but the respondent him or herself is required to ask any questions to the witnesses (and someone may only submit questions in writing that the tribunal may or may not ask). The proceedings are often farcical. But, as far as I am aware, such proceedings have been held to provide adequate due process. Could the same standard apply in the context of immigration proceedings?

[Martinned]

Apparently whatever process may be due, it doesn't involve anything in the way of an interpreter or a legal adviser. So that's functionally equivalent to no process at all, I'd argue.

[ThePublius]

You are so full of it. You just lie, and lie, and lie to promulgate your hatred for the U.S. and its current administration.

"In deportation hearings, immigrants have the right to an interpreter and legal assistance. Interpreters ensure clear communication, while legal counsel helps navigate the complex legal process. ICE provides translation services and legal aid organizations offer assistance, especially for those facing deportation. "

Language assistance:
https://www.ice.gov/detain/language-access

Legal assistance:
https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/opla

In addition, there are many advocacy groups that provide assistance.

[Martinned]

Sure, the advocacy groups try to provide assistance because otherwise kids end up standing in front of a judge on their own: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/17/politics/immigration-court-minors

[Dr. Ed 2]

WHO FUNDS THE ADVOCACY GROUPS??????

[Martinned]

George Soros?

[tylertusta]

Here's a summary of what process is due:

https://arvian-immigration.com/understanding-the-deportation-process/

One caveat to that link's summary is that circuit courts of appeals can hear appeals for final orders of removal, and SCOTUS may elect to hear appeals from there, but Congress has limited what can be appealed to Article III courts (with good reason).

[ReaderY]

As a matter of constitutional law, immigrants in general are only entitled to an administrative hearing. And as you say this is analogous to Title IX hearings for university students facing expulsion from university. So let’s stick with the analogy.

There have been a string of cases lately where losing university students have challenged the fairness of their Title IX hearings. Students have won in a number of important cases. It should therefore not be surprising to you that immigrants have periodically won somewhat analogous cases over somewhat analogous fairness claims.

https://www.shipmangoodwin.com/insights/1st-circuit-addresses-due-process-rights-in-title-ix-hearings.html

https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/sixth-circuit-provides-expansive-due-process-rights-title-ix-cases

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/02/federal-appeals-court-defines-fairness-title-ix-policies

There is an additional issue. The Alien Enemies Act was passed in the 18th century, before the administrative state came into being. So it provides for hearings in court, not administrative hearings. Since Congress is free to provide more process than is required, people subject to President Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation actually get more process than typical immigrants.

Finally, courts have held that while an administrative hearing is adequate for deportation, immigrants can generally go to court to challenge detention while deportation proceedings are pending separately from the deportation itself, because a claim of unlawful detention is subject to judicial habeas corpus review.

[Commenter_XY]

In theory, Congress could bar art 3 courts hearing habeus claims from foreign aliens by legislation, correct? The Congress would limit jurisdiction, is that correct? That is my understanding of how the Congress can limit the Judiciary.

[not guilty]

"In theory, Congress could bar art 3 courts hearing habeus [sic] claims from foreign aliens by legislation, correct? The Congress would limit jurisdiction, is that correct? That is my understanding of how the Congress can limit the Judiciary."

Suspension of habeas corpus does require an act of Congress which includes "a clear statement of congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction." Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 298 (2001). It further requires the existence of a rebellion or invasion such that the public safety may require suspension.

Those are three separate inquiries. A blanket exclusion of "foreign aliens" even by Congress from seeking habeas relief would likely not pass constitutional muster. That would pose problems according to the plain language of Article I, § 9, the First Amendment petition clause, and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment due process clause.

An alien, as well as a citizen, is a "person" for equal protection purposes. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 375 (1971). "Classifications [based on alienage] are inherently suspect, and are therefore subject to strict judicial scrutiny whether or not a fundamental right is impaired." Id., at 376. "Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2 (1975), and cases cited.

[Moderation4ever]

The need for speed? My local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, was filled with articles this morning about vehicle speeds. First was a report of high speeds on Madison local inner-urban highway, The Beltline, with last year having 12 citations for speeds in excess of 100 mph this year and already this year. A second article about states wanting authority to put speed control devices on vehicles used by drivers with records of driving at excessive speeds. Finally an article about city planners using road diets to control speeds in city streets. The article about really high speed driving have made me wonder why car are made to travel at such high speeds. I would think a car would need no more than a top speed of 85 mph. This is plenty of speed for occasionally passing a slower vehicle. Especially given that 70 mph is the usual top speed for cars on controlled enter/exit highways.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cars are made to be capable of traveling at such high speeds, because that way they have adequate operating margin at the speeds they normally are used at.

You don't want to be driving down the expressway at 70mph, your engine is red lined, your tires about to tear themselves apart, the brakes utterly hopeless to stop you in an emergency. You want the car to be able to pass, to accelerate decently, even at the highest speed you'll be using it at. And to handle well at those speeds, too. I recall a trip I was on last year, and a 6x6 timber fell off a truck ahead of me on the expressway. My car went on two wheels evading it, but I DID evade it.

You also need the potential to seriously exceed the speed limit in emergency situations. Like, you're driving along minding your business, and see a damned tornado overtaking you in the rear view mirror.

Finally, the whole auto manufacturer and customer base still have not abandoned the hope that our long national nightmare of Puritanically low speed limits on expressways designed for 85-90mph will eventually end.

[Speaking for normal people]

Still the neighborhood jerk is just like what you describe but has glass packs...That's okay for you but we all hate it. A lot of those cars are driven by borderline social misfits unmarried and between 20-34, heavy drinkers or drug users and will glady join you in your ridiculous crusade if you use the word 'puritanical

[Brett Bellmore]

We routinely mock people with deliberately loud vehicles, in our family. Some idiot owned car emitting a roar as it pulls away from the stoplight, while being passed by somebody in a quiet compact car...

[Dr. Ed 2]

30 over is a criminal offense in most states.

People in jail aren't driving.

[ducksalad]

Really? Around here you wouldn't be arrested unless they tacked on reckless or racing.

90 in a 55 zone only got my friend a ticket. And I know others who got a ticket for 100+ in a 70 zone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's only 35 over, and at a criminal trial, a good lawyer can impeach the 6 mph -- urban Interstates are still 55 so we're talking 50 over, a lawyer (usually) can't get around that.

It's why speed limits came to end in 5s when speedometer calebrations ended in 0s -- 5 MPH variance.

And it's cop's discretion...

[Moderation4ever]

The reality is that we have a real reluctance in this country to penalize bad driving until they kill people. The average American is dependent on their car and this leads to leniency. I read all the time about people driving after multiple OWI arrest and wonder why. I am willing to give a first time OWI a break, but not after first. Second offense loss of license for 10 years and a lifetime suspension for any additional OWI's. I know multiple offenders are driving without a license, but someone giving them access to a car and that person should also be penalized.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that then becomes a disability and they wind up living off the government for the rest of their lives.
My sister did that at age 27, she bought a house, had a child (without husband) and got a master's degree -- all while "unable" to work.

That's now -- imagine a real barrier to work like no license.

[Moderation4ever]

The dependance on a vehicle is part of the problem. If taking away a person's right to drive means they have a disability then something here is wrong. It should not take a person killing someone for the law to decide they can't have a license.

[Moderation4ever]

Brett, I am not suggesting that cars be built to only go 85 mph, but rather that is the maximum speed allowed. A driver would not be red lining the vehicle at 85 mph. All cars today run on computer and could be programed to limit the speed to 85 mph. Law enforcement vehicles could have the computer swapped out to allow higher speeds.

[ducksalad]

All cars today run on computer and could be programed to limit the speed to 85 mph.

If they can be programmed they can be reprogrammed. Even if the code protect was really good, "unlocked" versions would be on Ebay within a few months.

[Moderation4ever]

First I doubt that many would actually purchase an unlocked version. Second, operating with an unlock version would mean your vehicle is no longer street legal and could confiscated. Going 100 mph is no longer a ticket it is losing your car.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How long did it take to catch Mercedes-Benz? And that was all vehicles, all the time.

Besides, the auto loan companies would never allow confiscation, and that would even be without the "defective goods" defense.

Prove that I put the chip in there. I'd never driven over 80 before, so I never knew....

[ducksalad]

In theory. I doubt the Feds are going to create their own highway patrol, so enforcement would be left up to the states, and your initiative would most likely be coded as "a Democrat law".

So Texas would only do selective enforcement, or in other words, targeting people the cops wanted to stop anyway.

Losing a car or even being arrested for simply driving 100 mph is not likely. Someone ...um, I know very well...got just a ticket for 90 in a 55 zone. I know others personally who got a ticket for 100+ in a 70 zone.

When they want to do an arrest and impoundment they'll tack on something like "reckless" or "racing".

[Brett Bellmore]

At certain hours and locations on I 385, if you're not driving at least 80 people are going to be passing you. I'm cool with the occasional person passing me; As I tell my son, the secret to never getting a speeding ticket is just never being the fastest car around.

But if you're going slow enough that everybody is passing you, you're obstructing traffic, even if you are driving at the speed limit.

[Jmaie]

As the saying goes, "Any one going faster than me is a crazy. Anyone going slower is an idiot. Anyone notice how many idiots there on the road these days?"

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm suggesting that putting speed limiters on cars would be unpopular enough to end political careers. It would piss me off, and I've never gotten a speeding ticket in my entire life.

And that's without the way the speed would start creeping down once they got their foot in the door.

[Zarniwoop]

Really? I had a mid-00s Chevy Malibu for a while. The speed governor was set at 105mph.

I would occasionally maintain that for extended periods of time in western Nebraska and Wyoming. It was stable and responsive. I would have liked to be able to go 110 or 120, but not enough to bother getting an after-market chip installed … much less ending someone’s political career.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course buying that car with that feature was your choice. Not the same as having no choice.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The government could enforce such a top speed limit using its police power--it would hardly even need a reason. There is no "2nd Amendment" relating to fast cars.

I happen to like fast cars, so I would rather the government didn't do that, but I also assume that some sort of top speed limit will happen soon somewhere, and that trend will simply build and build until it is considered "normal" within any jurisdiction monitored by Main Force Patrol...

[Brett Bellmore]

State governments could, as they actually HAVE the police power. The federal government was deliberately denied that power outside of federal enclaves purchased with the consent of state legislatures.

Unfortunately the Court has allowed the federal government to create an unreasonable facsimile of the police power by simply reciting some words about interstate commerce, or bribing state governments with money extracted from the states' own citizens.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Intestate Highway Act -- states sold a lot to get the 90% free money.

[John F. Carr]

The Ninth Circuit ruled that Congress could have set a 55 mph national speed limit using its power to regulate interstate commerce. Nevada v. Skinner.

But then it would be the federal government's job to enforce the limit. Much like it's the federal government's job to enforce immigration laws. Maybe red states would refuse to help and blue states would be all in.

[ThePublius]

Car control? Assault car bans? What's next, gun control?

Oh, never mind.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maine is 75 on most of the 120 mules of I-95 between Bangor & Canada. And 75 into a 40 MPH wind is like 100.

[ducksalad]

"I would think a car would need no more than a top speed of 85 mph."

Do you live in Vermont or something?

We've got plenty of roads with a posted 85mph speed limit, which around here means that's the expected right lane speed and anyone in the left lane is expected to be moving faster.

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious, where is here?

[Moderation4ever]

A check of maximum speed limits by states suggest that only Texas has post 85 mph. Some western states have maximum posted speed limits of 80. In all cases these higher speed are on specific segments of highway. I think a maximum vehicle speed of 85 mph work work well.

BTW - how often are you driving a segment with an 85 mph speed maximum.

[ducksalad]

how often are you driving a segment with an 85 mph speed maximum.

Maybe 15-16 times a year for a total of 1400 miles or so. We live in Edinburg but have a lot of family in DFW. The main obstructions are San Antonio and Austin, but fortunately there's a bypass around both of them, SH130-SH45. Sections of it are posted at 85mph, others at 80mph. I guess you could call it a "maximum" but traffic actually moves at 90mph +/- most of the time, which is in line with how Texas enforces posted limits on most highways.

530 miles and we try to make it in 8 hours, including three pit stops and the permanent traffic jam that is called Waco. We need to average 80mph while the car is moving and not in Waco.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have found that speeds above 85 MPH do not save time on long distances because you spend more time refueling than you save.

[bernard11]

So let's say you're driving 1700 miles.

At 85mph it will take 20 hours of driving, at 70mph it will take about 24 hours. So you save four hours of driving.

At 350 miles between fueling stops at 85mph you will make 4 stops (assuming you start with a full tank.)

At 425 miles at 70mph you will make 3 stops.

Just how long does it take you to fill your tank?

[Jmaie]

A friend spent 56 hours on a Seattle-to-New York road trip, in a jeep wrangler, ~2,900 miles. With a 15MPH difference they'd have been able to save somewhere between seven and eight hours. Don't know about you but I'd call that uuge...

[Bob from Ohio]

"states wanting authority to put speed control devices on vehicles used by drivers with records of driving at excessive speeds"

Screw that, once they get away from that, it would be every car.

If you support it, you hate liberty!

[Moderation4ever]

Curious to know how a person's liberty is curtailed if their car will not travel faster than the maximum speed limit set for an interstate highway. Doesn't the speed limit already impinge on their freedom? Should the government really be telling me how fast I can drive through a school zone? Isn't it the right of the driver to decide the speed they drive?

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is never the toe in the door, it's the body that is sure to follow.

[John F. Carr]

No the government should not be telling you how fast you should drive through a school zone. The government has demonstrated a complete inability to come up with sane speed limits. The fact that a school projects an aura of schoolness a quarter mile beyond its walls does not make the government saner. More the opposite.

[Commenter_XY]

Only 12 citations for 100+ mph? M4e, that is just a bad morning in The People's Republic of NJ, especially during the summer.

Granted, we already have ~40K people in the US dying annually in car accidents. Somehow though, the europeans survive high speed limits. I don't see why we can't have unlimited (or no) speed limit for isolated desert sections of highway.

[Brett Bellmore]

Puritanism, essentially.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anyone know if any roads still have "Safe & Sane" for a limit?
I seem to remember such, decades ago in Nevada or Arizona.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem is defining "sane". I see a lot of moves on the road that fall short of "sane" in my definition.

[John F. Carr]

The "reasonable and proper" era ended when Montana imposed a general speed limit 25 years ago. Traffic speed didn't change. The people who need speed limits for others were happier.

[John F. Carr]

Sixty years ago a low end car would top out around 85, limited by engine power. Roads were much more dangerous then.

Very high speed drivers are mostly a danger to themselves and there aren't many of them. You're not going to make a dent in fatalities by eliminating triple digit drivers. Controlling the average American who drives 70 on the highway and 35 in town is a non-starter. American speed cameras mostly don't write real tickets because the voters would freak out. (A real ticket is a moving violation. A camera ticket is a bill.)

I think government owned vehicles and vehicles used by policy making officials on their way to work should be governed to below the speed limit except when lights and siren are on. Make the lawmaker drive 60 instead of 90 to get from Westchester to Albany.

[Moderation4ever]

Car are certainly better today and with significantly better safety features, including sensor technology. Roadway are also better. What has not changed is people and their reaction time. Speed is killing more people and more than just drivers. High speed drivers just don't have the time people need to react.

[Brett Bellmore]

Speed doesn't kill, acceleration kills.

Seriously, high speeds on limited access roads are a different matter than high speeds on regular roads. Limited access roads are deliberately set up to minimize the need for quick reactions.

I've driven on the Autobahn, which really does have no upper speed limit in some stretches, and it doesn't have a higher accident rate than other roads in Germany, because it's properly set up with acceleration and deceleration lanes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

15 state AGs agree with Laurel Libby.
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/05/attorneys-general-of-15-Astates-back-rep-libby-in-amicus-brief-while-ag-frey-urges-scotus-to-deny-her-appeal/

[ThePublius]

"Page not found." 404 error.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My bad -- I somehow picked up stray characters. The correct url:
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/05/attorneys-general-of-15-states-back-rep-libby-in-amicus-brief-while-ag-frey-urges-scotus-to-deny-her-appeal/

[Krayt]

My bad -- I somehow picked up stray characters

Sounds like the last few years of any random Netflix show, e.g. Stranger Things, Orange.

[jb]

Here's the actual brief since the link above doesn't work:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1051/358402/20250508163022264_Libby%20Amicus.pdf

It's hilarious to see Montana on the list since their legislature censured one of their senators and barred her from the floor for saying the wrong thing a couple of years ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The difference is that the Montana rep could (a) still vote and (b) still speak remotely (zoom?) -- and (c) this was in response to the rep loudly disrupting the body.

Least restrictive approach to address conduct disrupting the body.

Libby posted (actually reposted) a photo on her twitter feed while at home, at least an hour's drive from the capitol city, let alone in the building or even leglislative chamber.

Libby was sanctioned for "endangering a child" -- her defense is that every other legislator posts pictures of children on their twitter feeds, and that she used pictures that already were in the public domain and had been posted by Greely High School.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Winning in Maine:
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/05/maine-agency-quickly-scrubs-discriminatory-hiring-quotas-after-trump-admin-threat/

[ThePublius]

More mainstream media lies.

CNN reports that there are zero Chinese ships headed for U.S. ports. "We haven't seen this since the pandemic."

In fact, that's a lie. There are 53 Chinese ships headed for U.S. ports, more than there were on this day a year ago.

[Sarcastr0]

Is this what you're talking about?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/10/business/zero-ships-china-trade-ports-pandemic

"Six days ago, 41 vessels were scheduled to depart China for the San Pedro Bay Complex, which encompasses both the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach in California. On Friday, it was zero."

Maybe it got corrected, but this doesn't seem as you characterized it.

[ThePublius]

CNN is trying to spin a narrative that Trump is hurting world trade, and leading us into shortages of goods. It's a total fabrication. There is more ocean goods transport now than a year ago.

[Sarcastr0]

You started with a much more concrete statement. Now you're pulling back to 'trying to spin.'

Not a great show.

And this doesn't look like spin, it looks like numbers:
"The busiest ports in the country are experiencing steep declines in cargo. The Port of Long Beach is seeing a 35-40% drop compared to normal cargo volume. The Port of Los Angeles had a 31% drop in volume this week, and the Port of New York and Jersey says it’s also bracing for a slowdown. On Wednesday, the Port of Seattle said it had zero container ships in the port, another anomaly that hasn’t happened since the pandemic."

There's a framework for a deal; maybe we'll pull back from this. But it's nuts to pretend there's nothing to see here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or is it because inflation has eaten up the disposable income of too many Americans?

[jb]

Must be a big conspiracy and not just CNN:

https://www.wsj.com/business/logistics/cargo-shipments-from-china-to-the-u-s-dwindle-9877596a

Also, the CNN and WSJ seem to actually be doing some reporting. Maybe you're right and they're wrong, but it would be helpful to have a cite or something so we can have a conversation about actual data.

[Estragon]

https://www.vesselfinder.com/ports/USLGB001

Port of Long Beach, 77 vessels have arrived within the past 24 hours and 43 ships are expected to arrive in the next 30 days.

https://www.vesselfinder.com/ports/USLAX001

Port of Los Angeles, 61 vessels have arrived within the past 24 hours and 52 ships are expected to arrive in the next 30 days.

[Zarniwoop]

ThePublius asserted without providing a source:

CNN reports that there are zero Chinese ships headed for U.S. ports.

What is the exact source for your claim that "CNN reports" ... the rest of that sentence? A link will do nicely, please.

If you falsely state "CNN reports" something it didn't actually report, that's not really an indication that CNN is unreliable.

Because you lacking basic reading comprehension - or simply making something up - is also on the table here.

[ThePublius]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/10/business/zero-ships-china-trade-ports-pandemic

[grb]

1. Thanks for the source.
2. It doesn't match your original claim above.
3. It is factual in details.
4. It is correct in overall reporting.

Do you want to revisit your initial accusation?

[Mr. Bumble]

Everyone makes mistakes. He seems to have corrected his.

[Zarniwoop]

Thank you.

So is your post the result of a "basic reading comprehension" problem? Or a "making something up" problem? Or did you credulously repost a claim from a right-wing agitprop web site that perhaps you shouldn't trust in the "truthful media" category?

Man up, tell us your thought process. How did you decide to a demonstrably false claim about verifiable facts. Gaze at your navel fora few seconds. Introspection is hard, but a good exercise.

And maybe think on what happened here the next time you dismiss factual reporting as spin because of your "buh-buh-but CNN" bias.

CNN will admit when it fuckered up. Will you?

[Estragon]

“credulously repost a claim from a right-wing agitprop web site”

That’s a bingo. There’s a video going around he obviously saw.

[apedad]

17 Red Flags That Someone Might Be a Sociopath or Psychopath

Lack of Empathy
Manipulative
Superficially Charming
Superiority complex
Impulsive
Lack Remorse
Irresponsible
Overrely on Others (abuse generosity of others)
Lie Easily
Little Control Over Their Behavior
History of Early Behavioral Problems
Sexually Promiscuous
Don’t Have Realistic, Long-Term Goals
Don’t Have a Stable Lifestyle
Engage in Criminal Activities
Lack Accountability
Unable to Form Deep Emotional Bonds

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/17-red-flags-that-someone-might-be-a-sociopath-or-psychopath/ss-AA1CN6RJ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=57f2c2fd6f4247af832343ee4967f45c&ei=25#image=2

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you President Donald J. Trump!

[Brett Bellmore]

You know you can skip most of that list, and just go by the fact that they're holding elective office, right? Sociopathy is so common in elected office and management that they had to add a bit about it getting you in trouble, for purposes of diagnosis.

[Sarcastr0]

Pop-psychology sociopathy diagnoses are silly.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I believe that for professionals the Goldwater rule is still in effect: You can't diagnose somebody you haven't personally examined, even if they ARE a public figure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

AND if you have personally examined him, HIPPA applies....

[David Nieporent]

I think you meant HIPPO.

[ThePublius]

It's HIPAA

[Mr. Bumble]

David thought he was being cute.

[Bob from Ohio]

One of his most annoying traits is pointing out the HIPPA versus HIPAA error.

[David Nieporent]

Come on; that’s not even in my top 10 most annoying traits.

[Ska]

I'm more concerned with my brother-in-law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Symptoms of Adult ADHD

inattentiveness
being easily bored
talking over people in conversation
insensitive
irresponsible
uncaring
being easily distracted
finding it hard to listen to others in a conversation
overlooking details
not completing tasks or projects
procrastinate on tasks
show up late for events
ignore assignments they consider boring
interrupting others during conversation
being socially inappropriate
rushing through tasks
acting without much consideration for the consequenes
compulsively eating an imbalanced diet
not exercising

[Commenter_XY]

This list sounds pretty much like every POTUS there ever was.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If you are for or against the death penalty, Professor Corinna Barrett Lain's new book Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection is a good read.

It is written for the general audience while providing in depth details of the science and other facts involved.

It is a detailed look at how f-ed up the whole process is, including use of secrecy to avoid and hide problems. States also have regularly played fast and loose with contractual obligations of companies not to use their drugs for executions.

Her biography, not covered in the book, is also interesting. Prof. Lain is a law professor and has written about the death penalty for quite some time though this is her first book on the subject.

Separately, when asked, Lain argues [if we had the death penalty] the firing squad would be the best method for the condemned. She says we don't use it since we consider too brutal and in your face. The lethal injection procedure has been quite brutal, but we can lie about it to ourselves more easily.

For those interested, many interviews (text and audio) with her can be found online.

https://corinnalain.com/books/secrets-of-the-killing-state/

https://urnow.richmond.edu/features/article/-/19220/from-army-to-academia-law-professor-recounts-military-experience.html

[Estragon]

If I have time later today I’ll check out the interview, looks interesting. I did want to highlight this:

“the firing squad would be the best method for the condemned”

I presume the Prof made this assertion before the most recent firing squad execution in South Carolina.

https://apnews.com/article/firing-squad-autopsy-missing-bullet-south-carolina-ffce046a03b2f636f79cff3a50f9474d

1) Bullets did not hit target, leading to slow and painful death.

2) Secrecy and dubious assertions by prison officials.

Pretty mind boggling that in a country so awash with guns they couldn’t find three corrections officer volunteers who could hit a target from 15 feet.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

" [if we had the death penalty], the firing squad would be the best method for the condemned"

I presume people know the game of "would you rather," which forces you to make a choice, even if none of them are good.

Her bottom line is that we shouldn't have the death penalty. IF we have it, the firing squad might be the best way.

Nitrogen gas is put out there as a reasonable alternative, but the evidence so far is mixed.

To add one more thing, two justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court would have blocked using the firing squad. One focused on it being "unusual" while the other noted it was also "cruel."

[Mr. Bumble]

"Her bottom line is that we shouldn't have the death penalty."
...and there it is.
Maybe it should be done like assisted suicide in which pain doesn't seem to enter into the picture.

[Estragon]

Yes I rather suspected that was the case. Oftentimes, ISTM, the firing squad advocates are more focused on the presumed effect of that method upon the opinions of those of us who live on, in that the advocates tend to be anti-death penalty generally. The logic being— I suppose— that the more in-your-face and visceral nature of the firing squad would serve, eventually, to sway public opinion against executions generally. How much that view is truly informed by an interest in the actual comfort of the condemned is unclear to me, and I’ll just reiterate here I haven’t read this persons work yet— I am making a more general observation.

I think the flaw in that view is that it underestimates the deep, pathological sadism present in many of our fellow citizens. The last few months provide countless examples, and one of our commenters helpfully demonstrated the same below (“ one round to the back of the head”)

[ducksalad]

Not sure the commenter was motivated by sadism. If the goal is minimum time conscious of pain it might be the most foolproof method, and it's the traditional method to put any large animal out of its misery.

[Estragon]

1) Anecdotes are not data but I went to law school with an individual who survived being shot in the face so it’s not exactly foolproof.

2) As pointed out by another commenter, assisted suicide is a thing and doesn’t appear to carry even remotely the same concerns regarding pain and suffering before demise. See, e.g. the Sarco pod. Given the existence of such methods I do not think suspecting there is some sadism is lurking in the hearts of many is unreasonable especially given…

3) Our lived experience over the last few months in this country. And…

4) this and other commenters commenting history. One example I like to go back to is the absolute unbridled glee expressed here repeatedly over the exploding pagers. Expressions of glee, BTW, that focused particularly on presumed injuries to sexual organs, despite reports that most injuries were to hands and faces. Just to pick one example. I’m sure you can think of others. For example, all those fine people chanting USA USA at videos of prison porn and forcible shaving. Or laughing at the idea of Paul Pelosi being struck in the head with a hammer in the entryway of his home by a stranger. Or… etc etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you keep pulling stuff out of your ass like this you're going to wind up disemboweling yourself.
"Anecdotes are not data ..." and that's what you've been posting.

[Estragon]

“pulling stuff out of your ass”

That expression implies fabrication. Go ahead and point out the fabrication in what I wrote.

[Bob from Ohio]

"survived being shot in the face so it’s not exactly foolproof"

Yes, that's why they aim for the chest. Hitting the heart will kill just about every time.

People survive shots to the face because unless it hits the spine on its way out, its messy but its possible to survive.

[Bob from Ohio]

"absolute unbridled glee expressed here repeatedly over the exploding pagers"

Your empathy for terrorists is very much misplaced.

[ducksalad]

I don't deny any of that, including the records of some commenters here. But I thought that particular comment deserved the benefit of the doubt, considering that a sadist could advocate for other accepted capital punishment methods that definitely have a longer linger time (shooting through the chest being one of them).

[David Nieporent]

1) Anecdotes are not data but I went to law school with an individual who survived being shot in the face so it’s not exactly foolproof.

Completely unrelated to this discussion, but when I was in law school one of my classmates had a breakin at his apartment and he was shot in the shoulder. As it turned out, it didn't hit anything major so he recovered fine. A bunch of us went to visit him in the hospital the day after, and people kept saying to him, "Wow; you were so lucky." And I kept responding, "No, so lucky would've been if the bullet had missed him entirely."

[grb]

David Nieporent : ".... lucky would've been if the bullet had missed him entirely."

The shoulder or fleshy part of a leg is the go-to place for heroes to get shot in movies. If you've got impeccable good-guy credentials but need a bullet wound, it's pretty much a given. And your typical movie star is hardly fazed with either site. He just gives a manly shrug and continues on with his plot duties. It's possible real life is more problematic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Almost never agree with David but lucky would be (if you were shot at) having the bullet miss.

[not guilty]

"The shoulder or fleshy part of a leg is the go-to place for heroes to get shot in movies. If you've got impeccable good-guy credentials but need a bullet wound, it's pretty much a given. And your typical movie star is hardly fazed with either site. He just gives a manly shrug and continues on with his plot duties. It's possible real life is more problematic."

Yeah. Somehow those bullets never hit the hero's femoral artery.

[Brett Bellmore]

And you never see them going through the rest of their lives with one arm hanging at their side because of a severed nerve, either.

[bernard11]

Don't worry, David.

It was just a flesh wound.

[Commenter_XY]

You're just mad b/c of the Night of A Thousand Bris'. 🙂

Hope they do the same in Iran and Yemen. Whoever did it.

[Estragon]

“deep, pathological sadism”

I thought my point was well-enough supported but thank you for yet another example

[JoeFromtheBronx]

would serve, eventually, to sway public opinion against executions generally

Prof. Lain took two approaches (in different articles):

When asked what the most humane way to execute someone would be, Lain’s answer is the firing squad. “Death by firing squad is nearly instantaneous,” she says. “That’s certainly better than being electrocuted for five or six minutes or being gassed to death for six to 10 minutes or being slowly suffocated under a veneer of peacefulness for 10 to 20 minutes.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-execution-method-touted-as-more-humane-but-evidence-is-lacking/

I have seen other death penalty experts (such as Deborah Denno) also pick the firing squad.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol49/iss4/1/

Then Judge Alex Kozinski supported the firing squad both because he thought lethal injection was based on a lie (a peaceful death) and because it was so problematic in use. He did not oppose the death penalty specifically.

Lain also acknowledges that the firing squad could change the conversation, partially because it will provide a more honest accounting of what is going on:

“The firing squad is too honest, too explicit about what the death penalty is. People tend to think it’s barbaric and archaic,” Lain said, adding: “In that way, it may start some very important, and long overdue conversations about the death penalty in this country.”

Anyway, involuntary state-supported execution is hard; that's a theme of the book, which makes it different from voluntary euthanasia (animal or human) in practice.

She might add a bit more now that South Carolina began to use it again & the book does not examine firing squad executions.

Nonetheless, she is well aware that the death penalty as a whole is carried out in a slipshod way. She would not be surprised that firing squad executions were problematic too.

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume it wasn't so much that they couldn't hit a target from 15 feet, as much as they suffered a failure of nerve.

[Martinned]

Why shoot from 15 feet? Why not put the condemned at the receiving end of a bunch of guns at 15 cm? Push a button, fire. No need for a literal squad, just a single button to pull all triggers at once.

[Mr. Bumble]

...one round to the back of the head.

[Bob from Ohio]

The most lethal method.

Anti-death fanatics would faint dead away just at the thought of a state doing it though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Shrapnel. Flying bone chips can be lethal -- you don't want dead shooters. And blood is a biohazard.

[Martinned]

No, I would put the shooter in the next room. Just set up a remote-controlled contraption.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I suspect one round was a blank.

[Estragon]

According to SC corrections, you are wrong— for the bazillionth time. Is it so much to ask that you at least try and read the links before responding?

[Jmaie]

" She says we don't use it since we consider too brutal and in your face."

That's why hanging went out of style.

Personally, if you want a quick and painless death there are two perfect options.

- weighted hanging, instant neck snap
- CO2 gas. I've seen some here talk about the agony of oxygen deprivation but I can tell you from personal experience, it as just falling alseep.

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

Here are some headlines that no Democrat has seen:

* Trump has reached a tentative trade deal with China.
* European leaders were caught on film with a coke baggie and coke spoon (Marcon, Tusk, Stermer and that German clown).
* The DOJ has opened an investigation into Letitia "Get Trump" James and the defense her lawyers (paid for my taxpayers, naturally) have laid it is one Letitia "Get Trump" and her pet judge refused to let Trump make.
* Israel is throwing a tantrum because we're no longer their foreign policy dupe & puppet.
* Violent Democrat politicians who raided the ICE facility are going to face justice for their law-breaking.
* President Trump just signed an EO to drastically reduce prescription drug prices for EVERYONE.

Democrats haven't heard of these because these things are good for America, the Rule of Law, and Democracy.

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

How long before some Democrat activist and Democrat judge block Trump's EO so they can protect Big Pharma's profits?

[David Nieporent]

About 15 minutes, since of course Trump has no authority to do any such thing, and of course Trump's communism remains communist.

[David Nieporent]

Pretty much all of those are false, except the one where Trump is stealing Bernie Sanders' platform, but (of course) doing it illegally.

[Josh R]

The EO states the plan is authorized by section 804(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Namely, RFK Jr. can grant waivers for cheaper imports (beyond Canada). You got me if that is a permissible interpretation of the statute.

[rloquitur]

In effect, Americans subsidize European drug sales. It's fair that Trump wants to deal with that.

[Martinned]

Americans mostly subsidise the shareholders of the various companies that are inexplicably involved in the US health care sector.

[Bwaaah]

Yes. Shareholders are "inexplicably" involved in almost all aspects of the US economy. Is the existence of profits also inexplicable to you, or is it inexplicable that profits get distributed to hundreds of millions of "unqualified" people?

[Martinned]

That's not even close to what I said.

[jb]

Cute how you just throw a piece of outright Russian propaganda amongst your list of topics that have been discussed in this very comment section by both Republicans and Democrats alike.

For those of you who haven't seen the latest from Magnus's handlers:

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/12/fact-check-macron-merz-and-starmer-targeted-by-russian-cocaine-claims

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

Why do you think they mentioned the coke spoon early but then just dropped it all together?

[jb]

Probably because you don't need one to use tissues.

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

You must not have watched the video.

You don't secret away a piece of tissue and a tissue spoon.

[jb]

You must not have looked at the picture of the tissue.

[hobie]

I'm still trying to get thru the slew of articles on the Trump family's massive corruption and influence peddling operations. Once done, I'll get to the bullshit you mention

[Zarniwoop]

One of the IEEPA tariff cases in the U.S. Court of International Trade (VOS Selections v. Trump) is up for oral argument tomorrow at 11am (Eastern, I assume).

Docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69888953/vos-selections-inc-v-donald-j-trump/

Info on oral argument here:
https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/upcoming-court-proceedings-accessible-teleconference

[hobie]

A muslim community in Plano, Texas wants to build EPIC City which would span about 400 acres and create housing, day-care facilities, medical clinics and schools. As the developers have said over and over until they are blue in the face; anyone of any faith is welcome to live there, and only the laws of Texas will be enforced.

Yet hotwheels Greg Abbot and all the other hillbillies have been enraged by it. Today Abbot halted construction on it. Yesterday, Senator Cornyn convinced Bondi to open a federal investigation. All of them claiming the community will engage in religious discrimination and practice Sharia law.

For me, the religious discrimination claim is the richest. Yes, it will be a predominantly Muslim community, but how in the hell is that any different from the Amish, FLDS, Orthodox Jews etc. all of whom have very exclusionary communities and schools?

So tell me, hayseeds, what's the beef? The only difference I can see is they are brown

[David Nieporent]

They're not brown; they're Muslim. Muslims come in all shades from black (i.e., sub-saharan African) to white (i.e., Palestinians). And yes, this is of course bigotry on the part of the GOP.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Shouldn't that be "e.g." at least once?

Muslims can be white Europeans or whatever.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, it should be e.g., not i.e.

[rloquitur]

I would like to hear more. What actually is going on?

[Sarcastr0]

Sean Duffy: "We're all been reporting and seeing what's happening at Newark airport. And I think it's clear that the blame belongs with the last administration."

Like a reflex.

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

Its so rare that one administration blames the previous one especially within their first few months!

He should be ashamed! No administrations do this! This is violating our sacred norms!

[rloquitur]

Pete Buttigieg was asleep at the switch. Own it.

[Glaucomatose]

Sean Duffy fired hundreds of FAA staffers, halted grants for infrastructure improvements under IIJA, and has been an utter joke as transportation secretary, ranting about the merchant marine, woke highways and DEI while our infrastructure rots.

Heck of a job, Duffy.

[ThePublius]

"while our infrastructure rots"

ANd how long has Duffy been transportation secretary?

[Glaucomatose]

Long enough to lay off a bunch of transportation workers and throw a wrench into the progress we've made over the last four years.

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/society-news/article/2025/03/25/asce-report-card-gives-us-infrastructure-highest-ever-c-grade

[Sarcastr0]

Again; the mere invocation.

The Trump admin's mass firing pretty strongly suggests causality.

You don't even have a story, just shitposting.

[ThePublius]

That's such bullshit. Trump has been in office 113 days, as of today. You're saying Trumps layoffs are the cause of the ATC system failures? You are truly deranged, a partisan hack liar.

These ATC systems have been on life support for decades, and no admin has done what was required to keep them up to date and running, for 40 years! Now Sean Duffy has said he wants to address it, and there's nothing but hate and blame form you all on the left.

FWIW, Biden did nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

I think firing a ton of people has effects pretty quickly.
The timeline tracks pretty well!

Turns out air traffic control runs on more than just systems.

[Glaucomatose]

Biden put billions of dollars into FAA grants for airport infrastructure under the IIJA. Trump fired hundreds of FAA employees and halted those grants.

Look, I don't know how long it takes for those firings to start having adverse effects on operations, but it's pretty reasonable to guess "This long" based on what we've seen over the past week or two.

[Bwaaah]

The FAA recognized (once again) in 2000 that our ATC systems were antiquated and inadequate. Seven years later, in 2007, they announced the kickoff of development of the NextGen ATC system. The current plan, which has evolved significantly over time, is to complete NextGen deployment by 2030.

Anybody want to bet that NextGen won't be deployed by 2030?

Only a committee of bureaucrats, guided by subcommittees of bureaucrats, guided by all interested stakeholders, could account for the failure to recognize the essence of time itself, but assure that not a single person is responsible for such a huge failure.

It's the govment doing as it too often does.

[John F. Carr]

Hand the project off to the tech industry on the condition that the company doing the work be organized as a partnership instead of a corporation. A general partnership leaves investors responsible if airplanes start raining from the sky.

[Brett Bellmore]

Require the management of the company doing the work to commute to work via airliner. Give them some skin in the game.

[David Nieporent]

How big do you think their driveways are?

[Bwaaah]

LOL

[jb]

Seems like there's a couple of things going on here:

1) The FAA moved the controllers for Newark from Long Island to Philadelphia last year. This seemed pretty questionable to me at the time, especially since they knew in advance that this would result in some attrition. Apparently they thought this would make it easier to staff the roles going forward, though, so maybe it will be the right long-term plan? In any case, I think the Biden administration owns this decision. It happened on their watch and Buttigieg was well aware of the plan.

2) There's been a bunch if technical failures between the Philadelphia site and Newark. I don't think we know enough about these to attribute blame, but we do know that one of the first thing the Trump administration did was fire a bunch of technical employees working at the FAA responsible for systems like these. That's not a smoking gun; at a minimum, it's emblematic of the administration's "shoot first and ask questions later" approach.

[Mr. Bumble]

" It happened on their watch and Buttigieg was well aware of the plan."
Assumes facts not in evidence (that Buttigieg was aware of anything related to his job).

[David Nieporent]

Why? Buttigieg is competent, unlike the TV show characters that Trump hires.

[jb]

Such a dumb and tired take.

In any case, here's Buttigieg discussing the topic:

The fate of this handful of employees in a work force of more than 14,000 has gotten the attention of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, even as his workload strains under the demands of tackling jetliner assembly problems at Boeing, investigating the cause of recent train derailments and leading the battle against what the Biden Administration says are “junk fees” charged by airlines.

“The complexity of N90 is more complex than many countries’ entire airspaces,” Mr. Buttigieg said in an interview with The New York Times in December.

Given the low staffing levels at N90, he added, “we know there needs to be more attention there.”

Your understanding of the world would probably be a lot better if you didn't caricature the other half of the country who happens not to be on the same political team.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in four years he did nothing to fix it except talk about it.
"workload strains" indeed.

[jb]

Oh cool, we went from "Buttigieg wasn't aware of anything related to his job" to "he did nothing except talk about it" pretty quickly.

But of course:

- The whole point of the move to Philadelphia was to address the problem long term, even if it was going to be painful in the short term*
- The FAA exceeded its hiring goal for Air Traffic Controllers in 2024
- During the Biden administration, the FAA launched a program to streamline training/onboarding for applicants with degrees in air traffic control
- The Biden infrastructure act included $5B in funding to upgrade the ATC system

Let's see what your next pivot will be! Might help to do the tiniest bit of research to see if your knee jerk opinion is correct first, though.

* By the way, the initial plan to move to Philly was devised in the first Trump administration since I'm sure your instinct is going to be to say what a terrible idea it was

[Mr. Bumble]

"Oh cool, we went from "Buttigieg wasn't aware of anything related to his job" to "he did nothing except talk about it" pretty quickly."
Not mutually exclusive.
" The whole point of the move to Philadelphia was to address the problem long term, even if it was going to be painful in the short term*
Painful for whom?
"The FAA exceeded its hiring goal for Air Traffic Controllers in 2024"
One year out of four and it's been reported that we are 2000 short. Also, it takes quite a while before ATCs are ready to go on the job (lots to learn when peoples lives are at stake).
"The Biden infrastructure act included $5B in funding to upgrade the ATC system."
Was anything done with that funding or was it like funding for EV chargers and high speed internet?

[jb]

"Not mutually exclusive."

It is literally not possible to be unaware of something and also to talk about it.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, whatever. No more time for this. Dying dog needs my attention.
By the way your Scotch stinks.

[not guilty]

I'm very sorry about your dog, Mr. Bumble.

[ThePublius]

Trump and Duffy should ask Musk to fix this. He could get a group of young genius kids to put a system together in less than a year, from mostly COTS components.

As an example, did you know that the U.S. Navy uses Raymarine consumer marine radars for many roles, even on aircraft carriers?

[Sarcastr0]

What makes you think he could? Has he and his 'young genius kids' actually built anything like that?

So far it's all been privacy violations and data scraping.

[ThePublius]

SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla, ...shall I go on? You think they couldn't build a replacement for a 60+ year old ATC system? With COTS components? Geez.

[Sarcastr0]

Even assuming he and his stable of young geniuses was the key to those successes, you're way too broad spectrum.

Building a code base to fix aircraft control is not the same as doing a tech startup.

You're doing the equivalent of insisting a brain surgeon should be good at treating a cholera outbreak.

[Kazinski]

I like Elon, but he isn't the only one competent in the US, as long as we don't turn the job over to Boeing we should be OK.

Or make DEI a factor in awarding the contract.

[ThePublius]

"Building a code base to fix aircraft control is not the same as doing a tech startup."

Yes, it is, as a matter of fact. If you don't think a bunch of bright young engineers can replace functionality that was developed 50 years ago, you don't know anything about technology and modern engineering.

[jb]

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

There's a reason why 70% of the Fortune 500 still uses mainframes. Replacing stuff from 50 years ago, especially when you have to keep the whole system up and running the whole time, is really hard. People almost always regret trying to do it, and it always takes longer and is harder than expected.

[jb]

Also: Boring Company, Hyperloop, Solar City, Neuralink

Musk has done some really cool stuff and made a lot of money in the process. He's also had some good ideas whose implementation went really badly. The Air Traffic Control system isn't a domain in which I want someone moving fast and breaking things.

[Bob from Ohio]

From blast e-mail from Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP:

"On May 1, the Minneapolis City Council voted to amend anti-discrimination protections within the city’s ordinance by adding three protected classes: (1) height and weight; (2) housing status; and (3) justice-impacted status. The ordinance applies to any person or business within the City of Minneapolis who hires or employs any employee, and any person or business, wherever located, who hires or employs any employee whose services are to be partially or wholly performed in the City of Minneapolis.
The new protected classes will prevent employers from using height and weight, housing status, or justice-impacted status as motivating factors for any adverse employment decisions, including decisions covering hiring and firing.
Under the amended ordinance, employees are still allowed to make decisions based upon height and weight if an individual’s height or weight prevents them from performing a job’s essential functions without a reasonable accommodation, treating height and weight in a similar manner to an employee’s physical disability."

Comments?

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

This is gonna be funny.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have to hire the embezzler to do your accounting, the shoplifter to handle stock in your store?

Sounds like Minneapolis really wants to encourage businesses to move out of the city.

[Bored Lawyer]

"justice-impacted status" -- I assume that means, or includes, criminal convictions.

[Bob from Ohio]

According to the Law School Admission Council:

Justice-impacted individuals include those who have been incarcerated or detained in a prison, immigration detention center, local jail, juvenile detention center, or any other carceral setting, those who have been convicted but not incarcerated, those who have been charged but not convicted, and those who have been arrested.

[Commenter_XY]

Just when I think that the People's Republic of NJ has a monopoly on stupidity, the Mini-Apple city council conclusively shows otherwise.

Justice-impacted individual. LOL. What is next...Grade Impacted Individuals must be taken by Harvard and Yale?

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

Did yall notice all the radical Leftwing Dems saying "Happy Mother's Day" instead of "Happy Chest Feeder Day" or "Happy Birthing Person Day"?

Like America, transphobia is back, baby! Woo hoo

[Longtobefree]

Just for the record:
A phobia is an irrational fear.
I would suggest that fear of the delusional people that can't accept the real world, and who want to mutilate children chemically and physically, is perfectly rational.

Men can't become women.
Women can't become men.
The earth is not flat.

[Mr. Bumble]

Looks like the major market indices have recovered and might be heading for new highs.
Paul Krugman weeps.

[Estragon]

“Krugman weeps”

I realize you were just searching for someone coded as liberal to invoke here but if you had read literally anything Krugman has put out in the last 40 years… I think he’s about as clear as anyone in stating that the stock market is not anywhere near top of mind when he thinks about the “real” economy.

What makes ME weep is Scott Bessent going out and announcing tariff policy and results of negotiations to private gatherings of Morgan Stanley bankers before the general public— enabling those bankers to front-run the markets. Drain the swamp indeed.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/krugman-trump-global-recession-2016-231055
Did that happen?
Deja vu.
https://thehill.com/business/5087581-krugman-trump-economic-policy/

[Estragon]

1) nothing in these canned links you obviously got from somewhere even comes close to contradicting what I said.

2) you mysteriously avoided talking about Scott Bessent and the pump and dumps happening right before our eyes.

Look— I can’t make you interact with Krugman’s work. It’s there if you want to— you don’t even have to subscribe to the demonic NYT.

But to implicitly characterize him as singularly focused on the daily movement of the stock market is so inaccurate it’s hard to know where to begin.

[Kazinski]

There was a major extreme heat warning in the UK over the weekend and people were being told to keep doors and windows closed and stay inside.

Tempratures were projected to hit 77f (25c), on a weekend in May.

<a href="https://x.com/Lewis_Brackpool/status/1921483908119466059?t=h42wZUs0p4ml_3MCJXOyAQ&s=19"https://x.com/Lewis_Brackpool/status/1921483908119466059?t=h42wZUs0p4ml_3MCJXOyAQ&s=19

Google AI provides helpful context:
A "25-degree heat bomb" in the UK refers to a period of unusually hot weather, specifically when temperatures reach or exceed 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit). This typically triggers health warnings and recommendations for staying indoors during the hottest parts of the day. The term is often used when a large area of the UK experiences these high temperatures, creating a sense of a sudden and intense heatwave. "

[Mr. Bumble]

Hard to believe this is the country which survived Nazi Germany's Luftwaffe.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Tempratures were projected to hit 77f "

70s over the weekend and 80 in NE Ohio today. No one staying inside with everything closed up. On the contrary, people are very much enjoying it outside.

The weekend weather was not even hot enough to turn on the air.

Brits are soft.

[Kazinski]

Makes you wonder why so many of them flee to Portugal and Spain for temperatures in the 90's.

[Paladin_44]

Not many have the air to turn on. A/C is (or was) sorely lacking in the UK. I remember one brutally hot August (90° plus temps) and no A/C in my (cheap) hotel room. Nobody was in the pubs with all service outside where at least there was a bit of a warmish breeze. The RT beer didn't help much either. Finally a good rainstorm came through a few days later to make things bearable.

[Glaucomatose]

The only thing surprising about heat waves in England (and 77 degrees doesn't qualify) is that the English are somehow surprised by them, even though they happen every year. I remember 30 years ago having to hide out in department stores and movie theatres because they were air conditioned and our flat wasn't. Every year it gets hot in the summer and the English act surprised.

I love that country but between this and binge drinking they've got some mental blocks.

[ducksalad]

Ought to give credit where it's due. In the last week

1. Trump apparently played some role in calming down India vs Pakistan. Even if it was a minor role, at least it was positive.

2. Trump, quite reasonably, came to a mutual ceasefire agreement with the Houthis.

3. Trump is pushing talks with the Iranians and being surprisingly open-minded about the parameters.

4. Somehow he got a separate agreement with Hamas to release one American hostage while the Israelis and Hamas are fighting with no ceasefire in prospect.

Most notably, he did these things over the objections of parts of his voting base, parts of his administration, and the Israelis. Of course he's still an impulsive, unintelligent, venal egomaniac. However, it appears he has a genuine instinct to avoid bloodshed and resists being pushed around by warmongers.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I suppose Marco Rubio et. al. had a role here.

[ducksalad]

Actually, my guess is that items 2 and 3 were *despite* Rubio pushing him to act tougher. But it's just a guess.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As to " Trump, quite reasonably, came to a mutual ceasefire agreement with the Houthis" I have seen references to the attack failing and him declaring victory.

I also don't know how much he personally "got" stuff etc.

[Kazinski]

And inflation came in less than expected and only .2% for month over month, and 2.3% year over year which is getting within the neighborhood of the feds target.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Trump, Pressed on Qatari Jet, Says Only ‘Stupid’ People Reject Gifts"

Trojan horse?

[Estragon]

LOL.

Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust managed by a law firm. Times have changed!

[Mr. Bumble]

"Carter's arrangement has often been described as a blind trust. Indeed, the Carter Presidential Library calls the arrangement a "blind trust." Carter's trust, however, was not blind in every sense. Pursuant to Section 102(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act, which Carter signed in 1978, a strict wall of separation was needed between the grantor and trustee. The trust, however, was managed by Carter's close personal friend and longtime confidant, Charles Kirbo. And Kirbo served as an adviser to the President, frequently visiting Carter in the White House. Kirbo was not an independent, disinterested trustee. The New York Times reported that the Lincoln bedroom was Kirbo's "home away from home." Moreover, the President was not really separated from his enterprises. In 1977, Carter had to "bail out" the family business.

Eventually, the President would acknowledge that the trust was not blind. In 1979, Carter's team characterized the trust as open, rather than blind. Even after that recharacterization of his role as trustee, Kirbo continued serving as trustee. The New York Times observed that had Carter chosen to claim his trust was blind, "he would have taken the risk that Mr. Kirbo, a close friend and confidant, might be ruled an invalid trustee." Under the rules, "[t]he trustee of that blind trust must be completely independent of the person whose business is being managed. But with "an open trust," the director of the Office for Government Ethics explained, "Mr. Kirbo's role [was] a moot point."

[Estragon]

Thank you for the added context. I stand by my comment— times have changed.

[David Nieporent]

"Trump, Pressed on Qatari Jet, Says Only ‘Stupid’ People Reject Gifts"

And yet, when we get cheap goods from other countries, Trump wants to reject them. Wait, I guess that is consistent with his thesis.

[not guilty]

Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to answer a reporter's question about whether a formal request for the return of Kilmar
Armando Abrego Garcia has been made to the government of El Salvador. He said, "Well, I would never tell you that. And do you know who else? I'll never tell a judge." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGiX0jWBn1g

It's time for Judge Paula Xinis to lock up Rubio for civil contempt until he discloses the information that the Court has ordered.

[Commenter_XY]

Keep hope alive. 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

Just what's his batting average when it comes to predictions?

[not guilty]

The rule of law means nothing to folks who hate the same people as Donald Trump. That is disgusting.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm not the one calling for Cabinet Officers to be jailed.

[Martinned]

Why not?

[tylertusta]

Makes sense why you would want that. After all, it's not your country, and talk is cheap.

[not guilty]

Jailing scofflaw cabinet officers who flout court orders until they come into compliance promotes the rule of law, XY.

[tylertusta]

Should Judge 'Hair On Fire' Xinis go back on her word now?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's executive order attacking Susman Godfrey says the firm "funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the US military."

In their court filings, the DoJ explains that the accusation is entirely based on charitable contributions the firm gave to GLAD.
https://abovethelaw.com/2025/05/doj-says-susman-godfrey-is-national-security-threat-for-giving-money-to-glad/

[LederbergerJustice]

By Anonymous Contributor – Ethics Advocate | LederbergerJustice.org
There’s a case unfolding in New Jersey that every lawyer, judge, and ethics watchdog in America should be paying attention to — not because it’s extreme, but because it isn’t.

For nearly a decade, Leah Lederberger, an Orthodox Jewish attorney based in Lakewood, NJ, built her legal brand as a defender of her community — protecting frum women, representing families in Bais Din (Jewish court), and wielding civil court filings like a righteous sword. But behind the public image was something far more disturbing.

Lederberger now faces a formal docketed ethics complaint before the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board (DRB Docket No. xx-xxx) along with 3+ other OAE docketed grievances with the NJ OAE district III Committee. The charges against her aren’t theoretical or based on hearsay. They are documented in emails, audio recordings, affidavits, transcripts, and court filings. Her misconduct has been tracked across multiple cases, years, and jurisdictions — both religious and civil.

The allegations, backed by sworn evidence, include:

Filing a false police report and presenting it in religious court as evidence of a criminal investigation — when no detective, no charges, and no open case existed.

Using fabricated domestic violence claims as legal leverage in family court, only to abandon those claims once property or custody was secured. a standard alleged MO of "file TRO, settle, drop TRO"

Intimidating rabbinical judges (Dayanim) during live Bais Din hearings with threats of secular litigation, effectively overriding psak with fear.

Executing sheriff levies against vulnerable individuals without proper notice or legal justification, including emptying a disabled man’s account overnight. (her own client)

And repeatedly demonstrating an emotional and psychological instability that renders her unfit to practice law — while no one intervened.

How Did She Get Away With It?
Lederberger’s pattern isn’t rare. What’s rare is that someone started documenting it. For years, her victims — many of them frum, male, and culturally conflict-averse — suffered in silence. Professionals around her whispered but never acted. Rabbinical courts enabled her behavior with procedural deference and fear of lashon hara. And the secular legal system? It looked the other way.

In short: she was protected by the very systems she abused.

This case is a live example of how professional discipline can fail when fear, culture, and silence converge. And it raises an urgent question for ethics boards, bar associations, and watchdogs alike:

What happens when misconduct hides behind religious identity, emotional performance, and procedural manipulation?

The Real Ethical Threat Isn’t Just the Misconduct — It’s the Silence Around It
For years, the people harmed by Lederberger were told not to speak. That it would be loshon hara. That it would “make the community look bad.” That no one would believe them. One man was told, “Just give her the win and walk away. Fighting her will cost you your soul.”

What makes this different now is that people are finally speaking — publicly, under their names, in writing, and with evidence.

Their stories and the full campaign are documented here:
http://www.LederbergerJustice.org

It includes the filings, timelines, and analysis of RPC violations spanning 8.1(a), 3.3(a), 4.1, and beyond.

What Makes This a National Issue?
Because attorneys like Lederberger don’t exist in a vacuum. They thrive in silence, especially within insulated or religiously governed communities.

Because legal institutions — even well-meaning ones — often lack the cultural tools to intervene when intimidation is framed as tradition or community loyalty.

Because if the bar can't stop an attorney after years of misconduct, the public will start doing it for them.

And that's exactly what’s happening now.

Final Thought: Ethics Doesn’t Mean “Don’t Get Caught”
This case isn’t about vengeance. It’s about truth. It’s about accountability in spaces that have long avoided it. And it’s a warning to every attorney who thinks charisma, identity, and fear can substitute for ethics.

The era of silent misconduct is over.
The record is public. The pressure is rising.
And the profession should be watching.

For documentation, verified filings, and victim statements, visit:
http://www.LederbergerJustice.org

[LederbergerJustice]

lakewood, NJ? this is crazy the thing with tight knit communities is the trust element is taken for granted more often than not....

[Bwaaah]

What is DRB Docket No. "xx-xxx"? Where is the "documentation" and "verified filings"? (I don't see any substantive detailed claims on the website you cited.)

Your post looks like an attempt at unpaid advertising for a project you endorse, and speaks only through vague innuendo. (I make no judgement of the veracity of your claims. I am simply pointing out your lack of visible substantiation.)

Me thinks: SPAM.

[Commenter_XY]

Team D eating their young again....

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/05/12/dnc-process-removing-david-hogg-vice-chair/

[Brett Bellmore]

This certainly sounds like a Trump EO worthy of discussing, and appreciating:

FIGHTING OVERCRIMINALIZATION IN FEDERAL REGULATIONS

The meat of it:

"Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States that:

(a) Criminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored.

(b) Prosecution of criminal regulatory offenses is most appropriate for persons who know or can be presumed to know what is prohibited or required by the regulation and willingly choose not to comply, thereby causing or risking substantial public harm. Prosecutions of criminal regulatory offenses should focus on matters where a putative defendant is alleged to have known his conduct was unlawful.

(c) Strict liability offenses are “generally disfavored.” United States v. United States Gypsum, Co., 438 U.S. 422, 438 (1978). Where enforcement is appropriate, agencies should consider civil rather than criminal enforcement of strict liability regulatory offenses or, if appropriate and consistent with due process and the right to jury trial, see Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), administrative enforcement.

(d) Agencies promulgating regulations potentially subject to criminal enforcement should explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to those offenses."

[Martinned]

So we're in favour of prosecutorial discretion again? Or is there a proposal to repeal criminal offences in there somewhere that I overlooked?

[Brett Bellmore]

Understand that the statute is the law. The regulation is just the executive branch describing how they interpret the law.

So if the executive branch says, "We're no longer going to interpret laws which don't SAY 'strict liability crime' as creating a strict liability crime.", that isn't prosecutorial discretion. That's more like the rule of leniency.

[Martinned]

Yes. And what is this EO doing? It doesn't seem to distinguish between offences set out directly in a statute and offences set out in regulations.

[Brett Bellmore]

"d) Agencies promulgating regulations potentially subject to criminal enforcement should explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to those offenses."

This is an effort to restrict enforcement to what the statutes actually authorize, because where the statutes don't authorize it, they won't be able to fulfill this command.

[David Nieporent]

Can you identify any case in which this actually ever happened? (That is, where a statute didn't authorize a criminal penalty but someone was prosecuted based on an implementing regulation?)

[Brett Bellmore]

Can you explain to me why this order is not something you'd applaud, even if you will insist on claiming it was unnecessary?

[David Nieporent]

I don't applaud the EO because as written it is a recipe for more corruption. If a particular regulation is bad, then it should be repealed, or at least the criminal penalties should be. Saying, "Well, as a discretionary matter we generally shouldn't prosecute" leaves the door open to enforce it against the administration's enemies (or the competitors of the administration's friends.)

And, even if you just fell off the turnip truck and think Trump wouldn't do that, an EO can easily be reversed by the next administration. It's another cheap stunt by Trump to avoid the hard work of governing.

[John F. Carr]

The order says the Attorney General should use her discretion when an agency requests prosecution of a violation of a regulation that was not listed as criminally enforceable on the agency's web site.

[Sarcastr0]

This EO doesn't do anything.

Clicking through, it's yet another agency reporting requirement. And a restatement of what was already general policy.

Immigration is excepted, of course. Which only shows the lack of impact - it's followed the same general rule about criminalizing regulations, so there's a lot of criminal regs there either.

Maybe the reason is some IRS thing? They do hate the IRS!

So yeah, best EO so far!

[Martinned]

Speaking of criminal offences that maybe should be enforced more, rather than less:

26 U.S. Code § 7217 - Prohibition on executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations

(a)Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for any applicable person to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.

(b)Reporting requirement
Any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service receiving any request prohibited by subsection (a) shall report the receipt of such request to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

(c)Exceptions
Subsection (a) shall not apply to any written request made—
(1) to an applicable person by or on behalf of the taxpayer and forwarded by such applicable person to the Internal Revenue Service;
(2) by an applicable person for disclosure of return or return information under section 6103 if such request is made in accordance with the requirements of such section; or
(3) by the Secretary of the Treasury as a consequence of the implementation of a change in tax policy.

(d) Penalty
Any person who willfully violates subsection (a) or fails to report under subsection (b) shall be punished upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

(e)Applicable person
For purposes of this section, the term “applicable person” means—
(1) the President, the Vice President, any employee of the executive office of the President, and any employee of the executive office of the Vice President; and
(2) any individual (other than the Attorney General of the United States) serving in a position specified in section 5312 of title 5, United States Code.

[Martinned]

(And yes, 5 years prison for something like this is bonkers.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Unless it's Donald Trump in which case it should be life without parole?

[Martinned]

Unlike you, my views on the law don't vary depend on who's in the White House.

The appropriate maximum sentence for an offence like this might be a few months in prison, (e.g. for a repeat offender). That $5,000 fine seems low, compared to the likely income and wealth of the "applicable persons", but generally this seems like it's exactly the sort of thing that should be punished with a fine, nothing else.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you think this law is Constitutional?

[Martinned]

Yes, but only because I think Trump v. United States is horesh*t. Under the interpretation given to the constitution in that case, obviously Congress can't legislate what the President can and cannot do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, Congress can't legislate what the President can and can't do when he's exercising his own powers, rather than powers Congress granted him.

We can argue about the extent of those powers, but, for instance, Congress can't legislate how the President goes about issuing pardons.

[Martinned]

It has been known, since long before the drafting of the US Constitution, that the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1610/J22.html

[Brett Bellmore]

And, of course, the Constitution itself is the highest law of the land, so if that law grants the President a prerogative, no statute can take it away.

[Martinned]

The Constitution grants the President the duty to see that the laws be faithfully executed.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have probably heard that, under American constitutional law,

"‘Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it because only the valid legislative intent becomes the law to be enforced by the courts."

So the President's duty to see the law faithfully executed does not apply to unconstitutional laws.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think even this Supreme Court will buy that circular logic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Betcha they will!

As an example, Congress has not constitutional power to dictate to the President what procedure he uses to pardon people. So if Congress enacts a law, (And overcomes a predictable Presidential veto!) requiring the President to defer to an independent pardon board, the President's duty to see the law faithfully executed will not bind him to act in compliance with that "law".

Because there is no such law, just an enactment purporting to be such a law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't we get back to impeach and remove first then try?

[John F. Carr]

If the unitary executive theory holds, the president can't get in trouble for telling his subordinates what to do.

[Brett Bellmore]

He can't get in trouble by the bare fact that he tells them what to do. If he tells them to commit a crime, he most assuredly can get in trouble for that.

[David Nieporent]

That's the opposite of what SCOTUS said. Indeed, what he told them, according to 5 justices, isn't even admissible in court.

[John F. Carr]

Today is the 40th anniversary of the MOVE bombing. Eight years later another anti-government group would be shot and incinerated in the Waco siege. Two more years brought us to the Oklahoma City bombing. Since then the government has been less trigger-happy dealing with anti-government protesters.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've long hated the thought that McVeigh was apparently right about what it would take to get the government to stop what was an escalating series of atrocities. They really didn't care until it was made clear to them they weren't untouchable.

If only the Republican Congress that came in after the '94 election had brought 2ome accountability, (Like they'd ran on doing!) instead of blowing it off the way they did. We might have put a stop to the atrocities without all those additional deaths.

The militia movement was on its way to becoming mainstream until that bombing, which gave the government all the excuse they needed to come down on it like a load of bricks. And the joke is, McVeigh wasn't even part of that movement, they wouldn't have him.

Well, one of the jokes. I do recall the laughter when they searched Nichol's farm, and breathlessly reported "nitrogen residues" were found in the barn...

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck.

If you even *continence* that your reforms may require mass deaths, you're on the side of evil.

This isn't the era of tricorner hats. And the chinstroking 'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' is also not flying.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I didn't think you'd understand the difference between "I approve of committing an atrocity" and "I guess he was right that nothing less would get the job done, since the people who were supposed to get it done were a waste of skin."

McVeigh was an evil bastard, and he likely could have accomplished just as much while giving them enough warning to evacuate, or, hell, just leaving the truck at the curb and phoning in a warning that next time it would be for real. I expect he's burning in hell right now, and deservedly so.

But I AM glad the government stopped committing atrocities against its own citizens, even if it never should have taken an atrocity pointed at the government to put a stop to it.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I know that saying 'I don't approve, but terrorism is what's needed to get the job done' is till approving of terrorism.

the government stopped committing atrocities against its own citizens
I don't think your charactarization is right, nor your causality.
But even if it were, your argument boils down to terrorism was regretable but it was the only way.

No, you're still way fucked up, dude.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
Do you actually claim that the raid on the Branch Davidians was not an atrocity?

[Mr. Bumble]

...but done with good intentions. You know to save the children. How did that work out?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Sarcastr0, the government had at the time been committing an escalating series of what can only be described as "atrocities". Ruby Ridge and Waco were just the ones that got enough press that the general public became aware of them. You've probably heard of the MOVE bombing, too. You likely didn't hear of a few tax protesters being burnt alive a bit before that.

Those atrocities were WHY there was a growing militia movement in the first place!

[Sarcastr0]

Can't forget the coverups!

Your narrative that what happened was government getting comfortable with doing attrocities until the OKC bombing forced them to calm down is...just not supported.

It's not just not the only way to read events, it's not near the top of the most likely read on those events.

The final stage of political thriller brain is condoning terrorism as Hard Men making Hard Decisions.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fucking Douche!

[ThePublius]

Home plumbing.

I have a very nice looking bathroom faucet in my new-to-me 100 year old house. One started leaking (hot), and one has low flow (cold). I couldn't I.D. the faucet, but brought the cartridges to a local pro plumbing supply house. No soap. If it isn't a big name brand, like American Standard, Grohe, Moen, etc., they don't have it. I went to the local Ace Hardware and they have a very nice, large book of cartridges with nice illustrations and I identified mine as a Glacier Bay faucet - a Home Depot house brand. No cartridges in stock at Ace, though. Home Depot - not only nothing in the store, the hot cartridge isn't even available online. Amazon has them via an aftermarket company, Danso.

I pine for the days when it was a rubber washer and stem packing twine. 🙁 Granted, the cartridges work better, and are quicker and easier to renew, but that's only if you can put your hands on them. And, they are more expensive: like $15 to $32 each.

Being a bit of a nerd I was able to rebuild the worn cartridges I had. I have two O-ring selections, one metric and one SAE. I disassembled the leaky cartridge and replaced an O-ring. I also soaked both cartridges in vinegar to remove the heavy calcium deposits and then polished them up a bit. Reassembled with waterproof food-grade grease and reinstalled. The cold side is still lower flow than I'd like, I think the supply line or perhaps the shutoff valve are clogged a bit. But it's all much better than it was.

Meanwhile I ordered a pair of cartridges from Ace. Should have them Friday, and I'll put them in stock for future repairs.

Note, there are things I don't do , as there is a really good pro available, and I'm not going to even touch gas plumbing or sewer drain plumbing.

Anyone else here do their own home plumbing repairs?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes. My advice is to take out the THD faucet, go to an actual plumbing supply store, and spend some money on a good faucet.

Nothing against THD, but you get what you pay for (cheap).

[ThePublius]

Yes, I hear you, but that's what the house came with, and it's actually a quite attractive and vintage-appropriate faucet. I looked for an American Standard replacement, but it was $509, and recently discontinued.

The one i have is chrome with porcelain baseball-bat like 1/4 turn handles. All of the other fixtures in the baths are that chrome and porcelain style.

I'll keep this one alive with the $30 in new cartridges, even though I've already rebuilt the leaking one.

[Mr. Bumble]

As for the low flow. Normally I would look at the aerator being clogged but since it is only the cold line it might be at the undersink shutoff or the riser. Unless the shutoff is a ball valve it probably has a washer the could break down.

[ThePublius]

In pursuit of this I ended up with a new 1.8 gph aerator, and cleaned and refurbed the tap, which is like a ball valve kind of thing. I haven't gotten into the shutoff valve yet.

[Commenter_XY]

Go to Ferguson. You'll find what you need there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I do my own home plumbing, too. Though the last time we had an under the slab leak, I paid a plumber to fix it, after I finished with the jack hammer reaching it. Just because I know how to fix pipes doesn't mean I want to do it hanging upside down in a hole, now that I'm in my 60's. I did replace the tub, though. (The leak was under it!)

I really did not want a slab house, for just that reason, but the house we were going to buy, with a nice spacious crawl space, ended up flooding just before the closing, and when we did our walk-through was already heavily infested with black mold. As we'd already given notice to the apartment, and they'd already committed to a new renter, we didn't have a lot of time to find a substitute.

I'll do any sort of piping if it's not under a slab. Electrical, dry wall, you name it. Growing up all my relatives were in the building trades... None of that stuff is actually very complicated.

I'm actually thinking of capping the hot water line going into the shower in our master bath, and putting in an on demand heater on the cold line; 60' under a slab with an uninsulated hot water line, it takes a while before the shower warms up...

[ThePublius]

Watts has a pretty clever instant hot water thing. Check out "Watts® HeatH2O Hot Water Recirculation System." It's a pump that can pump even against pressure without damaging itself, and a valve that connects the hot to cold at the point of use, allowing water to flow from the hot line until the line is hot. It can be run continuously or on a timer. Pretty inexpensive and easy installation.

[Bwaaah]

I do as much of my own plumbing as possible. I don't like plumbing because many repair jobs, especially in aged installations, go from bad to worse. I say a little prayer before I try to loosen any fitting. (Seems like God only hears 2 out of every 3 of my prayers.) If you take a long enough view of the situation, it can be said that metal dissolves in water.

I live in NYC in a ground floor apartment in a 50 year old residential renovation of a 100 year old commercial freight terminal. (My kitchen floor is atop the concrete loading dock of a former beer distribution terminal.)

Starting about 10 weeks ago, I thought I detected a fruit fly problem. I soon learned they were "drain flies." These buggers lay their eggs in standing water, ideally protected by scummy build-ups, both of which you can easily find near the bottom of many drain traps.

I replaced drain traps (and other plumbing components that broke during the process) and cleaned drains like I've never cared or cleaned before. I had the flies almost completely abated by two weeks ago when, for no apparent reason, they started to surge back in numbers. I tried to imagine where they could be coming from. I considered any moisture anywhere as a potential sign. My wife was as intently focused on the issue as me, but more annoyingly, she called out daily fly population stats to remind me that the enemy was not only alive, but continuing to spawn new young, daily.

My campaign against drain flies is soon to be won.

Fast forward to today, when a work crew and our building's plumber, in search of a broken drain line beneath our kitchen, completely removed/destroyed our kitchen and bathroom floors, removed all appliances, demolished all cabinetry resting on the floors of both rooms, and even broke a water supply pipe in the process of cutting up the floor, thereby adding a bonus flood to our suddenly unfolding odyssey.

Within around 72 hours, I expect there to be no drain flies, no kitchen, and no bathroom. That'll be a starting point, with the only direction to go being up.

I don't like plumbing.

[ThePublius]

Yikes! I have a very minor drain fly problem, them showing up in the icemaker occasionally. How can one eradicate them?

[Bwaaah]

One of the places I found larvae was in a trap in a plastic drain tube at the bottom of my freezer that channeled freezer condensation to a drip pan beneath the refrigerator. It was an easy job to clean that pipe once I got to it. A pipe brush or similar tool easily clears the bulk of the muck from the tube, and boiling water finishes off the cleaning and any remaining larvae. Alternative to boiling water, you can flush with chlorine bleach. (Vinegar and baking soda is a good cleaner for them in drains as well, after you've removed any overt clogs.)

[Bwaaah]

I look upon your cartridge rehab effort with admiration. I don't think I've ever tried that beyond lubrication and/or washer replacement. But then, I haven't yet had a problem locating a replacement cartridge.

Re-using through rehab can be a labor of love and, with some luck, a beautifully efficient mode of production. When it works, it can help restore things to the way they were, which is often quite the way you want them to be (as in your case with the "vintage-appropriate" fixture).

[ThePublius]

Thank you. It is gratifying, I must admit. They are working fine now, 'though I will still accept the replacements when they arrive at Ace Hardware on Friday.