Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, here is the ethics question for the law professors -- I asked it on Wed without the details I enclose here. Sure I can file it, the question is if it is ethical to do so.

This is a rough draft -- it lays out the facts.
------
I wish to bring to the attention of the BBO the following conduct by Lawyer FC, conduct which I believe to be violations of bar regulations 1.1, 4.1, 4.3, and 3.1 – along with possibly constituting extortion.

The facts are as follows:

My mother decided to leave house to me and advised other three siblings of her intent. Her rational was that I was the only one remaining to care for her while the other three had their own houses and families elsewhere.

In 2006, she created a nominee trust and sold house to the trust, deed registered at that time. She also registered the trust at the same time, and both documents are available on line to the general public.

The trust's language states that she is the trustee until her death and then I am. The trust also states that no trustee may be individually liable. The trust states that upon the death of the original trustee (mother), the vacancy is to be filled by me, and if I die, then my younger brother. This is public.

The schedule of beneficiaries is not, and it states that mother has “life interest” and that I have “remaining interest.” The Mass SJC (Morrison v. Lennett, 415 Mass 857, 860) has ruled that “a nominee trust is often used to hold legal title to the real estate so that the identity of the trust beneficiary may remain undisclosed.”

Lawyer states both that the trust terminated on mothers death and that I am being negligent as trustee (mutually exclusive). He states that “[my] obligations, pursuant to the terms of the trust , include maintaining books and records and providing proof of profits and losses” – there is no such language, nor any such obligation.

He is demanding I “provide a copy of the schedule of beneficiaries forthwith” and that “[f]ailure to provide a copy of the Schedule of Beneficiaries within 10 days from the date of this letter will result in legal action to remove you as a trustee.” The letter, dated the 8th, wasn't even postmarked until the 10th and arrived on the 12th.

He's threatening to seek legal fees and penalties and damages “that you will bear personally, rather than in your capacity as trustee.”

The basis of my belief of a 1.1 violation is if Attorney FC did this in good faith as I, a non-lawyer, was able to easially find, read, and print both the deed and trust document (enclosed is a screen capture of the search field). He is acting on the basis of the deed not existing while hallucinating language into the trust document which does not appear therein – if he truly did this in good faith, he is grossly incompetent.

Conversely, if he was aware of the above and sent the letter anyway, he violated rule 3.1 by “assert[ing] … an issue therein, [without] a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.” Either way, Attorney FC ignored a deed that does exist and hallucinated language that does not.

In making false statements of material fact or law regarding the status of the trust and my obligations as trustee, he violated Rule 4.1

I am not an attorney, a fact known to his client and one which he could have easily verified via the BBO website. In addition to his having no right to ask for it, in demanding that I provide a Schedule of Benefits lest I incur what were implied to be draconian financial penalties, he essentially provided legal advice to this unprepresented person. Nowhere in his letter did he suggest that I secure counsel, and his timeline imposed made it impossible to do so.

His letter was dated the 8th and postmarked on the 10th. It arrived on the evening of the 12th – in order for him to receive it by the 18th, I would have had – at most – two business days to obtain counsel, meet with counsel, and act on the advise of counsel. That's unreasonable – while the BBO regs do not explicitly state that an unrepresented person be given sufficient time to obtain counsel, I believe that is implied.

As his client has been on a medical retirement due to diminished capacity for over three decades, Rule 1.14(b) may also apply. Were he to bring a false and frivilious lawsuit on her behalf, and the court award me costs, she would suffer financial harm. An attorney, upon reading the deed and trust document, would advise her that she doesn't have a claim, even if she thinks she does.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"He is demanding I “provide a copy of the schedule of beneficiaries forthwith” and that “[f]ailure to provide a copy of the Schedule of Beneficiaries within 10 days from the date of this letter will result in legal action to remove you as a trustee.” The letter, dated the 8th, wasn't even postmarked until the 10th and arrived on the 12th."

That is bluster Dr. Ed. Don't freak out.

"Conversely, if he was aware of the above and sent the letter anyway, he violated rule 3.1 by “assert[ing] … an issue therein, [without] a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.” Either way, Attorney FC ignored a deed that does exist and hallucinated language that does not."

Nope.

But keep us posted.

[Dr. Ed 2]

<

[David Nieporent]

Rule 1.1 is a duty to his client, not to you.
Rule 1.14 isn't violated by anything you describe.
Rule 3.1 only applies in the course of a legal proceeding, which there isn't at this time.
Rule 4.1 in theory could have been violated, but disagreeing with an attorney's arguments is not going to get that attorney disciplined. (Assuming you understood his statements correctly; even if that isn't explicitly stated in the trust, it's likely that keeping financial records related to the trust is the legal obligation of a trustee in Massachusetts anyway. But, no, this isn't my legal advice to you. It sounds like he may be under the impression that his client is a beneficiary of the trust.)

And, no, he did not "essentially" provide legal advice to you. And, no, there is no implication or requirement that an unrepresented person be given time to hire a lawyer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"It sounds like he may be under the impression that his client is a beneficiary of the trust."

Or his client told him she was -- and I'm used to dealing with attorneys way too powerful to lower themselves to bluster and ad hominem vitriol.

But I am not aware of any record keeping requirements of the trustee of a nominative reality trust in Massachusetts. The attorney who set it up didn't advise my mother (the former trustee) of any, and she didn't do any over the prior 18 years.

While it is not legal advice, your implied suggestion of providing him the documentation that shows that his client is not a beneficiary of the trust is probably the best tactic here.

Now as to why he couldn't have just simply stated that and not been an obtuse prick about it -- if Chief Justice Roberts wonders why the legal system is no longer respected, the cumulative effect of lots of schmucks like this is no small part of it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is there anyone who cares to comment on what difference—if any—it would make in their political views if Trump were to order an open-ended and general suspension of habeas corpus? How about a limited suspension, targeting only groups Trump disfavors, if you happen to be among them, or if you are not?

[Dr. Ed 2]

After what was done during covid?

[Martinned]

Was habeas suspended during Covid?

[SRG2]

Your response is akin to stating that you would rather the question be not put. Try answering, rather than deflecting...

[Dr. Ed 2]

What I was implying I will now state -- there was such a wholesale rape of our civil rights during Covid that I would not be at all concerned if Trump did this.

While it may be open-ended in effect, like the GWOT, he could only justify it if it were finite in terms of either detainees or time.

[AmosArch]

Would anyone like to comment what difference - if any - it would make in their political views if Dems as a party not just one admin ripped up the 1st and 2nd amendment for years whenever they could get away with it. And ridicule the idea of free speech with terminology like 'freeze peach'. Except when it benefits them. Like claiming the 1st Amendment gives foreigners the right to stay in America forever if they say they want to exterminate Israel or hate America or similar? Oops looks like we have the answer already.

[SRG2]

Stephen: would it change your views if Trump purported to suspend habeas corpus?

Amosarch: please answer my question first and then I will ignore yours.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see any difference. Presidents lack the power to suspend habeas corpus, period, end of story.

[Speaking for normal people]

Brett, LIncoln did it and Congress later passed an officil approval, poorly-informed Brett

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough: Presidents lack the authority to suspend habeas corpus. A President who shits on the Constitution might exercise the power, regardless.

[Speaking for normal people]

NO,missed again.He had the power and his reasoning was utterly unanswerable.

'Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated

[Brett Bellmore]

His reasoning was eminently answerable: "You're suspending Habeas in areas where the courts are fully functional, in order to jail your own political opponents, lest they persuade enough people that you're wrong that you lose the next election. You're not afraid of the government going to pieces, you are just concerned that the public won't support you if people are permitted to publicly dispute your position." seems adequate enough answer.

[David Nieporent]

1) Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus.
2) Lincoln was not in fact jailing his political opponents lest they persuade enough people that he was wrong that he lose the next election. He was trying not to lose the war, not an election.

[Brett Bellmore]

1) Right, I said that.
2) Wrong, he actually was. He was arresting people left and right in the North, where the court system was fully functional, and doing it on the basis of their speech and publishing activities.

He literally had Rep. Vallandigham arrested and tried before a military tribunal for a speech in opposition to the war. A member of Congress, for giving a speech! Frank Key Howard, a descendant of the guy who wrote the Star Spangled Banner, was a newspaper editor jailed for daring to write an editorial in opposition to Lincoln's suspension of the writ.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in what you said in #2 addresses my point.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, not even an argument, just flat implausible denial. Sorry, forgot who I was talking to for a moment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Lincoln was not in fact jailing his political opponents"/i>

He jailed somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the Maryland State Legislature -- and remember that, like Virginia prior to the creation of West Virginia, slavery wasn't predominant in all of Maryland.

Baltimore was a particular problem because all the trains from the north and west terminated there. Like as in Boston today, one had to go through the city and then board a different train.

I say his actions were justified, but he did throw a good chunk of the legislature in jail.

[Frank Drackman]

Check out the Big Brain on Brett!!! You're a smart (redacted) that's right, the Metric System

[bernard11]

Didn't you say you would abandon Trump if he suspended habeas corpus?

[Riva]

And courts lack the power to act outside the scope of their jurisdiction. Maybe they should re-examine their judicial insurrection?

[not guilty]

Riva, please read 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) and tell us which federal court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction.

Other than the United States Court of Federal Claims, perhaps.

[Riva]

Lower courts issuing orders outside the scope of their art. III power and/or statutory authority act outside of their jurisdiction. Even a court properly hearing a habeas petition that purports to improperly second guess and micromanage the executive branch, or orders relief outside the bounds of its habeas review, is acting outside its jurisdiction.

[David Nieporent]

1) That's not what jurisdiction means.

2) There is no such thing as "improperly" second guessing the executive branch.

[not guilty]

Riva, reading your comments often calls to mind the maxim attributed to Mark Twain: What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.

[ducksalad]

what difference—if any—it would make in their political views if Trump were to order an open-ended and general suspension of habeas corpus?

Currently Trump is merely a president with whom I severely disagree, and who very probably has violated some laws, but he hasn't yet fully and unambiguously renounced the very concept of laws and due process. So I feel an obligation to follow the laws (even when no one is looking) and acknowledge that he holds office legitimately. I could not in good conscience support a rebellion or insurrection.

If he did what you suggest, that's gone. I'm old and soft and not going to smack-talk about going Rambo. But I'd feel free to resist/aid/comfort however I felt appropriate without regard to law.

Your second question isn't meaningfully different, because even if a group fully and legitimately deserves to be "targeted", e.g. violent criminals, the whole point of habeas corpus is a hearing to determine whether you are really in the group.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's also an issue of venue here -- if Congress says Immigration Court instead of Article III Court -- and Congress apparently has -- then the proper forum is Immigration Court.

[David Nieporent]

That's not an issue of venue and is also wrong.

[Bwaaah]

Ducksalad's response pretty squarely comports with my own sentiments. There is essential substance to the notion, "We are a nation of laws." I am relying on the judgements of the courts, and ultimately SCOTUS, to determine if or when those lines have been crossed. I maintain confidence that all SCOTUS justices maintain sufficiently jealous regard for those lines as I do. (Many people cynically believe otherwise, revealing the warping rot that comes of cynicism.)

[ducksalad]

Yes on that last point. As far as I can tell at least 8 and probably all 9 of the justices, at least when it comes to the constitutional fundamentals, are doing what they think is right regardless of who appointed them. I also see no evidence of any opinions influenced by bribery or conflicts of interest. It seems obvious to me that Thomas and Alito would've ruled against abortion with or without a yacht trip or spouse's political activities.

I have confidence they'll do something reasonable when it comes to any basic due process case. My lack of confidence is in the other branches.

[Bwaaah]

If or when Trump supporters turn against him in significant numbers, Congress critters will turn quickly thereafter. (I, for one, am thankful for our elected vote whores, and their whorishness therein.) Otherwise, I expect there to be inadequate consensus in Congress to act for or against Trump.

As for the Executive branch, Trump's bounds are the bounds of his appointees. But that's just a handful of "bosses" who are members of the coming-and-going class. You can trust the career employees to be quietly resistant to almost any change, and will always employ their most able tactic as needed: labored foot-dragging. (Transitory agency heads will be unable to distinguish the difference, on a per person basis, between foot-dragging and normal employee behavior.)

As you might infer, I am an optimist.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm similarly confident that they think they're doing what is "right".

The problem is, the rule of law, and the rule of whatever the heck you think people would be better off thinking was the law, aren't the same concept. Even if you genuinely believe that it's your job to convince people the law means something that will have, in your opinion, good consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

No one disagrees with BrettLaw, they just agree and lie about it for ideological reasons.

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you noticed that I, for instance, think that the 14th amendment does actually guarantee birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? I'm willing to game out arguments you might make to the contrary, but come right out and say that they're BAD arguments.

This isn't because I think birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and tourists is a good idea. Quite the contrary, I think it's a terrible idea. But at least I can recognize when the Constitution means something that I think is a terrible idea, and advocate amending it rather than pretending it means something better.

There are lots of things in the Constitution I think were poorly thought out at best, or even outright mistakes. But I'm willing to admit that those mistakes are actually the law.

I wish more of the Justices were capable of that, or rather, thought it was the right thing to do.

[Sarcastr0]

The thing that's the dumbest about BrettLaw isn't its content, it's your assumption that disagreeing with it must be in bad faith.

[William of Brooklyn]

Ducksalad -- I agree with you; this strikes me as the right balance: as and when we have lost due process, far more extreme forms of resistance come within a justified ambit. And while I have a very mixed set of things with which I agree or disagree with the Trump administration, that would be a Rubicon for me. That said, I asked on these pages a few days ago what is the practical and achievable, legal and constitutional method for removing millions of people who have no right to be here, and are only present here due to the previous administration's failure to faithfully execute the laws. My own thinking is tending towards a status where anyone who is here illegally, with status adjudicated at any point by an Immigration Court, and found to be removable, is and ought to be removable, tout suite, as the right to due process has been met.

[ducksalad]

what is the practical and achievable, legal and constitutional method for removing millions of people who have no right to be here

First, let me admit up front that if it were up to me the overwhelming majority of "illegals" could stay. However, I concede that it's not a constitutional right and expelling them (through appropriate legislation and individual due process) is something a democratically elected government can decide to do.

IMO anyone who demands a full up trial with all the trimmings in a real Article III court, and supports the demand with some kind of sworn statement subject to penalties for perjury, should get one before anything final is done to them.

I'd be OK with a system where an initial less formal hearing is in front of some executive branch "immigration judge", after which there's an option to accept the result or double down and go through the regular legal system, with fair warning that a charge of perjury is going to be added almost by default.

I think in practice if the system was working properly and quickly full trials would be rare for all the same reasons most criminal cases don't go to trial. The "guilty" would quickly see the possible outcomes are a civilized deportation with your cash and possessions, or imprisonment/fines/seizures followed by deportation anyway.

The current problem is that challenging a CBP officer's on-the-spot judgment about asylum gets you several years living in the US awaiting a hearing. The process is the reward. The critical fix is having an order of magnitude more hearing officers.

[Brett Bellmore]

"IMO anyone who demands a full up trial with all the trimmings in a real Article III court, and supports the demand with some kind of sworn statement subject to penalties for perjury, should get one before anything final is done to them."

That's pretty close to my own view, actually, with the proviso that, since we don't want a bunch of people who'd predictably lose such trials to just conduct what amounts to a legal DDOS attack, using up all the system's resources so that most of them can stay, that penalty has to be big enough to pay for the trial you perjured yourself into getting.

If you've been through the immigration process, or know somebody who has, you understand that the immigration process is largely funded by fees charged to immigrants. So should the deportation process!

"The critical fix is having an order of magnitude more hearing officers."

Preach it! This problem was created in the first place by a Congress that didn't want the law enforced, but (correctly) viewed openly admitting that as political suicide, so they settled on just starving the enforcement system of resources.

The Republican Congress should already have funded enough hearing officers, but too many of them still think they can get away with deniably advancing open borders by blocking funding the system.

[David Nieporent]

It would make no difference whatsover in my view of Trump if he were to order a total or partial suspension of habeas corpus.

[DaveM]

Yet another hypothetical from Stephen following the pattern of "man, Trump is really challenging legal theory X, but what if he went over the line, eh? What then? What then?".

Don't we have enough factual things to argue over regarding Trump? Why do you insist on making things up?

The answer to your hypothetical, by the way, is Trump wouldn't step over the line like that because he's not an idiot. At least credit the man with being competently evil when he wants to be.

[Kazinski]

The entire Germain 1000+ intelligence report has been leaked, and it seems to be wanting. Now to be sure many of the main stream news outlets like Spiegel Claim it made its case but see if you can see the problem with how they are characterizing what it said. Here is the headline and the subhead:

A Look inside the Report Documenting the AfD's Right-Wing Radicalism
The AfD has issued threats of a "war against the government"

And here is that statement with fuller context said during an election campaign:
"If we have a government that is waging war against us, then we will wage war against this government. We have come to drive these people out of their seats.”

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/compendium-of-extremism-a-look-inside-the-report-documenting-the-afds-right-wing-radicalism-a-de2ab5b5-623e-4100-addb-d1e44c298305

The Social Democratic former minister seems to be leading the criticism:

"The BfV had previously tried to keep the 1,108-page report confidential with not even AfD itself been given a copy. Only a few passages had been made publicly available.

The German Interior Ministry – to which the BfV reports – had argued that the report contained sensitive sources and intelligence information and that the disclosure could jeopardise the agency’s work.

Mathias Brodkorb, a former SPD state minister refuted that charge. After reading the report, he wrote in magazine Cicero: “It was never about protecting the BfV from espionage, but of protecting it from a critical public. … There are no relevant intelligence sources to protect. The constitution protection agency has practically no intelligence findings on AfD. It relies almost entirely on publicly available sources.”

https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/05/german-intelligence-probe-into-afd-ends-in-farce-with-top-secret-report-leak/

[Commenter_XY]

Clearly, free speech is alive and well in Berlin. /sarc

[Martinned]

Colour me shocked that your main concern is about whether the German government is nice enough to the neo-Nazis.

[Frank Drackman]

AfD is about as "Right Wing" as Mitt Romeney

[Kazinski]

Well then make the case Martinned, give one example, I haven't read the report, but that's the Spiegal led with, surely you have one that an AfD official actually said that was not criticized by the official party.

[Kazinski]

Britain says hold my weak warm ale, 31 months for a Xeet.

The social media post, which she later deleted, said: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.”

She reacted to the news that three girls were stabbed and killed at a holiday club in Southport on the same date, sparking nationwide unrest.

At a Court of Appeal hearing on Thursday, Connolly said she “never” intended to incite violence and did not realise pleading guilty would mean she accepted that she had."

Giving evidence from HMP Drake Hall in Eccleshall in Staffordshire, Connolly had earlier told the court that when she initially wrote the post on July 29, she was “really angry, really upset” and “distressed that those children had died” and that she knew how the parents felt.

She said: “Those parents still have to live a life of grief. It sends me into a state of anxiety and I worry about my children.”

A mother with school age children sentenced to 31 months over a tweet hours after several young girls are stabbed to death.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-connolly-court-appeal-post-southport-b2751967.html

[Martinned]

Well yes, it's almost as if inciting arson in the middle of a riot is not protected speech.

[Kazinski]

Well if that's the standard, should James Comey go to jail?

[Frank Drackman]

Unless he did like Nixon and walk on the beach in wingtips and a suit he should go to jail for exposing innocent bystanders to his legs and feet.

[David Nieporent]

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Kazinski]

We are talking about Martinned's standards, not my own, or the US.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Chanting "No Justice, No Peace" actually IS protected speech.

[M L]

So I didn't know anything about this, just searched for a minute and saw this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-attorney-general-on-the-case-of-axel-rudakubana

"After careful consideration of independent legal advice and consultation with leading criminal barristers and the Crown Prosecution Service, I have concluded that this case cannot properly be referred to the Court of Appeal.

No one would want the families to be put through an unnecessary further court process where there is no realistic legal basis for an increased sentence.

The 52-year sentence imposed by the judge was the second longest sentence imposed by the courts in English history."

So in the UK, you can murder a bunch of children and you don't get a life sentence? In fact nobody ever gets a life sentence there, or even one longer than 52 years other than once in English history.

Seems kinda crazy or am I missing something here.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're missing any meaningful understanding of life outside of the USA, obviously.

But you also somehow managed to miss the Court's very next sentence: "Rudakubana will likely never be released and will spend the rest of his life in jail." (Which is rather odd, seeing as you did manage to accurately quote the rest!)

[jb]

So to combine two of your special interests.

The principle case that people seem to rely on for the proposition that immigrants don't have free speech rights is Harisiades v. Shaughnessy. The actual holding in this case is that membership in the Communist Party is actually threatening to the United States and not protected speech.

How do you feel about the fact that the US was using mere party membership as a proxy for whether or not that were a threat to the United States?

[William of Brooklyn]

See Holder v Humanitarian Law. Party membership, even in a designated terrorist organization, is something citizens can do. Material support, no, but membership, yes. Non-citizens who are members (let alone active in its operations,) not so much, and should and can be shown the door.

[David Nieporent]

What do you mean by 'membership' in a terrorist organization that you think would not be material support?

[William of Brooklyn]

DN - I think mere membership in the communist party, like membership in the Democratic or Republican Party, is not the same as "material support" under the law.

jb - You're quite correct that Holder did not turn on citizenship. I was bringing its analysis forward to see how it would play in the cases of Khalil or Garcia. And it may vary from organization to organization: in other words, the *claim* about Khalil is that he has not provided material support to Hamas, and that is possible in theory (though the facts surrounding that claim are in serious dispute,) whereas in the case of TdA, it may be the case that you can't become a member *unless* you do something that constitutes material support (like killing or stealing or trafficking.)

[David Nieporent]

DN - I think mere membership in the communist party, like membership in the Democratic or Republican Party, is not the same as "material support" under the law.

I understand that you are taking that position. What I was asking was how you were defining "mere membership" in a terrorist organization.

[jb]

What a weird reading of the case.

First, it simply says that 18 U.S.C. § 2339 doesn't make party membership a crime and therefore has no implication on Constitutional freedom of association. A better case to make your point would likely be US v Robel.

But: second, neither Robel nor Humanitarian Law seem to turn on the question of citizenship. In both cases everyone involved was a citizen, but you'd need to look to other cases to see to what extent those protections apply to non-citizens. In the case of Humanitarian Law, the underlying law which the Court found constitutional doesn't draw a distinction between citizens vs. non-citizens so it would treat both in the same way.

[Martinned]

The constitution protection agency has practically no intelligence findings on AfD. It relies almost entirely on publicly available sources.

Well yes, no shit. Doing intelligence work against a political party is extremely sensitive (and rightly so). The whole point of designating the AfD as right-wing extremists is that it triggers more powers for the Verfassungsschutz to carry out intelligence operations against it.

[Kazinski]

I think you are wrong about that:

"We already know that the BfV is secretly surveilling AfD members in certain German states, mostly in the east, where the party is “confirmed right-wing extremist” already. This designation allows for the BfV in those states to partake in extraordinary surveillance powers over AfD members, including reading their chats and emails. Presumably, they can also track their browsing history, and perhaps they are even listening in on their conversations at home."

https://rmx.news/article/why-is-the-secret-german-spy-report-on-the-afd-party-only-filled-with-public-statements/
The excuse was that they didn't want to expose sources and methods, but the report wasn't even released to the AfD, let alone the public until it was leaked.

And it likely was only leaked because there were no sources and methods, and no red flags either.

[Kazinski]

By the way there is an Eva Vlaardingerbroek video embedded in the link.

[Frank Drackman]

Ironic (more like Stupid) that a party that wants to go back to the days of the DDR is considered "Right Wing"

[John F. Carr]

"war against this government"

In context, the statement is like putting a bullseye symbol on a picture of a political opponent. It's not a threat of violence.

[Martinned]

Depending on the context, puttin ga bullseye on a picture of a political opponent most certainly *is* a threat of violence. And if anyone should understand that, it would be someone from a country where politicians get shot at all the time. (In the Netherlands they tend to get stabbed or lynched.)

[Kazinski]

Or had their livers eaten:

"The Untimely Demise of Johan de Witt: Cannibalism in the Dutch Republic
Legend has it that the mob ripped the flesh from the bodies and began selling and eating the remains. Limbs and clothes belonging to the brothers were apparently sold to bystanders in auctions, while pieces of the bodies were proudly put on display in pubs. Believe it or not, some of Johan’s and Cornelius’ body parts still survive today and are preserved in the Historical Museum of The Hague where the prison gates stand."

[Martinned]

Yes, that's the one I had in mind when I said "lynched".

[William of Brooklyn]

Would that also apply to a former FBI chief tweeting "8647"?

[David Nieporent]

No. This has been yet another episode — just a few minutes after the first one — of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Speaking for normal people]

as further proof that Biden is a llifelong fool

Biden says ‘bullseye’ remark about Trump was a mistake but defends criticism
By: Jacob Fischler - July 16, 2024

Most disgusting politician of my lifetime.

[Frank Drackman]

Sleepy Joe's bad, but I can think of a few more disgusting than him, lets see, Jerry "The Nad" Nadler, Christ "Fatso" Christy, JB the Hut Pritzker, Gavin New-Scum, Hakeem "the Bad Dream" Jefferson, and that's just the "J"'s

[Dr. Ed 2]

"If we have a government that is waging war against us, then we will wage war against this government. We have come to drive these people out of their seats.”

Kamala Harris said worse during the Summer of BLM...

[David Nieporent]

She did not.

[hobie]

You hillbillies sure have affection for rightwing apartheidists and neo-Nazis in other countries. There's still plenty of them in this country that could use your support. America first something something

[Sarcastr0]

Bannon is all in on white nationalist globalism.

He’s been losing a lot.

But some MAGA are lapping it up to use that to fuel their American nationalism.

It’s limited in impact given the hypocrisy and the openly horrible people they end up having to support.

It’s been _1_ days since a MAGA on here quoted a neo Nazi for truth.

[Kazinski]

Here are the highlights of the House reconciliation bill:

"Medicaid work requirements
For the first time in Medicaid’s 60-year history, certain recipients ages 19 to 64 would be required to work at least 80 hours a month to retain their benefits, according to an initial version of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s plan. They could also meet the controversial mandate by engaging in community service, attending school or participating in a work program.The requirement, which would take effect in 2029, would not apply to parents, pregnant women, medically frail individuals and those with substance-abuse disorders, among others.

Larger child tax credit
The child tax credit would rise to $2,500, up from $2,000, per child from 2025 through 2028, under the Ways and Means Committee plan.

MAGA accounts for kids
The Ways and Means Committee plan would create a new “money account for growth and advancement,” or MAGA account. The federal government would provide a one-time $1,000 credit to the accounts of children born from 2025 through 2028 who are US citizens at birth.

No taxes on tips and overtime
Certain taxpayers would be able to deduct the income they receive from tips on their tax returns, fulfilling a key Trump campaign promise, under the Ways and Means Committee plan.

A boost for senior citizens
Senior citizens would receive a $4,000 increase to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028, according to the Ways and Means Committee plan.

Car loan interest deduction
Eligible taxpayers could deduct up to $10,000 in interest annually from 2025 through 2028, for cars that were assembled in the US.

More tax breaks
The Ways and Means Committee plan would temporarily boost the standard deduction by $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for married couples.

State and local tax deductions
The Ways and Means Committee plan would also hike the current limit on state and local tax deductions to $30,000 annually for married couples, up from $10,000. But the full amount would be limited to those making $400,000 or less, before it starts to phase out.

Business tax breaks
The Ways and Means Committee would restore a tax break from the 2017 tax package that allowed businesses to fully write off the cost of equipment in the first year it was purchased. The incentive has been phasing out since 2023.

Higher taxes for universities and foundations
Some universities currently pay a 1.4% tax on the net investment income from their endowments. The Ways and Means Committee plan calls for raising that rate to as high as 21%, depending on the endowment’s size.

Expanded work mandate for food stamps
Under a plan approved by the Agriculture Committee, more food stamp recipients would have to work to qualify for benefits. Currently, adults ages 18 to 54 without dependent children can only receive food stamps for three months over a 36-month period unless they work 20 hours a week or are eligible for an exemption.

Federal employee retirement benefits
The plan approved by Republicans on the Oversight Committee, which is tasked with cutting at least $50 billion in spending, would require federal employees to contribute more to their pensions and make other changes to their retirement benefits."

All that from CNN, but I made some cuts, and slight edits for clarity and brevity. And of course there is more items but those were what I thought were the highlights.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/politics/what-is-in-trump-tax-spending-cuts-package

[Commenter_XY]

After this bill goes to the Senate, debt ceiling must be addressed. The clock is ticking.

[Kazinski]

Its in there too.

"The Ways and Means Committee’s plan would also raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion.

Congress needs to raise the debt limit before its August recess to prevent the nation from defaulting on its obligations, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote to lawmakers last week."

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll say it again: They need to call a constitutional convention.

We're locked on a rail headed towards default, and the only way to derail the debt train is a balanced budget amendment. Politically impossible to originate it from Congress, but you *might* be able to get a bare majority to call a Convention, which would originate one in a heartbeat.

[grb]

Absolutely. Hilarious.

Trump is about to add plus-minus three trillion in wholly new debt with his "big beautiful bill" and what does self-proclaimed deficit hawk Brett do? He cheers and cheers. Of course he voted for the candidate who promised the most new debt in the last presidential election just like he does in every single one. So how does self-proclaimed deficit hawk Brett reconcile this?

He makes pretty little speeches on debt being "very, very, bad" at regularly scheduled intervals and - proof of his "passion" on this issue - calls for a constitutional convention.

And as multiple exchanges from the past illustrate, federal debt is something he does want to address. That is, as long as the Right gets every thing they want, has every desire sated, is required to make zero compromises, and gets to own the Libs. Those conditions satisfied, Brett is to march boldly forward beyond his pretty speeches.

[Speaking for normal people]

NO, we need to follow the Constitution we have.
Now thanks to Pelosi and Biden mainly,we spend and then we raise the money.

“There is not a more important and fundamental principle in legislation,” James Madison said in a 1790 speech, “than that the ways and means ought always to face the public engagements; that our appropriations should ever go hand in hand with our promises.

BUT HERE IS THE LIBERAL HERO OF REASON
We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.

Thomas Jefferson

[bernard11]

Now thanks to Pelosi and Biden mainly

No mention of fanatical tax cutting by the GOP, especially W and Trump? Pretty selective accounting.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Tax cuts don't count--not even temporary tax cuts.

Why not? The boss doesn't want them to count.

[Brett Bellmore]

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.”

Milton Friedman

The problem is that, once it becomes politically viable to buy votes with borrowed money, anybody who refuses to gets outbid for votes, and ends up powerless, on the outside looking in. It's a classic failure mode for democracy.

So, the only way to get back to a balanced budget is to take borrowing to buy votes off the table. The public wants to do that, but the politicians are afraid that somebody else might replace them if they can't buy those votes anymore.

And, yes, it IS at least as much the GOP's fault we're here, as the Democrats. Back in '95 we had a near unique opportunity to derail the debt train, and the GOP deliberately killed the balanced budget amendment's chances of passage, by bringing multiple versions to the floor, so that everybody could vote for one of them without any particular one getting enough votes.

Newt Gingrich, rot in hell.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Back in '95 we had a near unique opportunity to derail the debt train, and the GOP deliberately killed the balanced budget amendment's chances of passage...."

Absolute. Hilarious.

Because we DID "derail the debt train" back in 1998-2001 and every measure to do so was over the objections of people like you. I had a very Brett-like friend at the start of the Clinton Administration and he insisted WJC's deficit reduction bill (passed without a single Republican vote) wasn't about reducing debt at all, but "controlling people". I just rolled my eyes. Right-wingers believe the stupidest things.

And after we did "derail the debt train", it was all undone by W Bush. Every hard-earned gain. Every politically-difficult compromise. Every painful sacrifice. All for massive tax cuts that soon had us buried deeply in debt again. And every action he took was applauded by people like you.

So give Newt Gingrich a rest, Brett, and go find a mirror. You'll find your culprit there.

[Brett Bellmore]

All that really happened back then is that the dot com bubble coincided with impeachment frenzy, and Congress temporarily couldn't agree on how to spend the loot.

Here, look at this graph!

Federal spending kept going up through those years, no extra spending discipline to be seen. The reduction in the deficit was due to a temporary revenue surge.

I WILL give you this much: Spending started ramping up faster when Bush took office. Please don't mistake me for somebody who liked Bush. But what really killed us was responding to the recession with permanent "temporary" spending.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " .... the dot com bubble coincided with impeachment frenzy, and Congress temporarily couldn't agree on how to spend the loot."

That's some of the weakest bullshit I've ever seen. Wanna know why you twist yourself into these contortionist knots to "prove" the two deficit reduction bills passed under GHW Bush and Clinton didn't do what they obviously accomplished?

Because you, Brett Bellmore, want no part of the sacrifices, compromises, and painful decisions needed to actually reduce the deficit. Oh, you love to talk about it; no person more. But anytime the discussion turns to real practical measures, you dart away like a frightened rabbit.

[David Nieporent]

Again: a balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea. I would invoke the usual cliché about how a government shouldn't be run like a business or family, but even those do not require that budgets be balanced each year.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the reason businesses and families do not require that budgets be balanced each year is that they are subject to circumstances that government isn't outside of major wars: Necessary spending that on rare occasions exceeds current revenues.

I went into debt when I bought my house, I have been consistently paying it down ever since. A business may borrow for productive investments that will pay off by more than the cost of the borrowing.

Our government is doing neither, it's just consistently spending more than revenue, year after year.

[grb]

Speaking for normal people : "Now thanks to Pelosi and Biden mainly,we spend and then we raise the money."

My Ex (bless her heart) never had more than a casual interest in U.S. politics, being a Berliner by birth. But she's taken to reading the Wall Street Journal which I happily admit is a top-notch paper as long as you ignore an editorial page notorious for lying.

So I wasn't surprised when she insisted Biden created more debt than first-term Trump, but the mistake was easily disproved. Trump caused more new federal debt than Biden if you include covid funding and even more so if you don't. SFNP probably is a U.S. citizen and should know better, but I suspect he has the IQ of an underachieving cobblestone. Therefore, my assistance is needed here as well.

(you're welcome)

https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt

[Krayt]

It depends what you mean by "obligations". To most people, that means interest on debt, and the Constitution requires that all public debt is valid and there's no bankruptcy for government. This means it is at the front of the line, even before third rail stuff like Social Security.

But there is plenty of income flow to cover both as an ongoing concern, and a lot more. It's stuff on the other end that would be shut down first.

These are not obligations except in the pandering rhetoric of politicians slinging money about like teenage boys who've "borrowed" dad's Jagermeister.

[bernard11]

Amazing how Republicans are now screaming about the need to raise the debt ceiling.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Medicaid work requirements
For the first time in Medicaid’s 60-year history, certain recipients ages 19 to 64 would be required to work at least 80 hours a month to retain their benefits....The requirement, which would take effect in 2029, would not apply to parents, pregnant women, medically frail individuals and those with substance-abuse disorders, among others."

While I understand the incentive, there are two problems here.
First, free care in emergency rooms is more expensive to provide, and you would prefer them not do that.

Second, an incentive to have a substance-abuse disorder?!?

"No taxes on tips and overtime

So the waitress earning $80K doesn't pay taxes but the truck driver earning $50K does? That's not going to go over well.

Likewise an hourly worker working 60 hours a week is only going to pay taxes on 40 hours while the salaried worker *also* working 60 hours a week is going to pay taxes on all 60?!?

[jb]

The no tax on tips is one of Trump's dumbest ideas. In addition to the obvious unfairness that Dr. Ed 2 highlights, why is Trump favoring this kind of income if he's trying to drive a resurgence in manufacturing jobs?

But most importantly: this will create a huge incentive for employers and employees to favor tip-based income over regular income. If you're annoyed at how often you're being prompted to tip people today, just imagine how awful its going to be if everyone has a strong preference to be paid that way.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The reason why it *appears* that overtime is taxed so much more than straight time is that the computer presumes that the income (including overtime) is reflective of the annual income and deducts on that basis.

In other words, presume $20 wage and employee paid weekly.
40 hours straight time = $800
20 hours overtime = $600
Total for week = $1,400

$800/week for 52 weeks $41,600.
$1,400/week for 52 weeks $72,800.

You are going to pay more dollars in Federal & State tax on $72,800 than on $41,000, and the computer is withholding on that basis.

[Bob from Ohio]

"why is Trump favoring this kind of income "

Because he wanted votes in Nevada?

If you recall, its bipartisan, Harris proposed it too.

[bernard11]

Hey.

Congratulations to Dr. Ed on this comment.

[Frank Drackman]

so the work requirement doesn't apply to
"those with substance-abuse disorders,"?????
They're the ones who need to be working the most, what do you expect an Addict to do if they're just sitting around all day? Learn to play the Cello??? I know, they've got AA/NA meetings to go to, well guess what? they have meetings before the work day, at lunch, at night, that's no excuse not to work

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, get real -- they will BECOME substance abusers to avoid the work requirement.

[Joe_dallas]

Kazinski 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Here are the highlights of the House reconciliation bill:

"Medicaid work requirements
"For the first time in Medicaid’s 60-year history, certain recipients ages 19 to 64 would be required to work at least 80 hours a month to retain their benefits,"

That follows the logic of "ending welfare as we know it" enacted during the Clinton administration with a republican congress. Probably the single most effective anti poverty program enacted since social security during the FDR administration.

Does anyone believe a democrat would support it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Requiring work for a cash handout is one thing -- requiring it for medical care that an indigent can otherwise receive, free of care, at any hospital emergency room is something else.

The real issue with the work requirement in even suburban America, let alone rural areas, will be transportation. Are we buying people cars?

[jb]

Wait, is that the extent of the Medicaid cuts they're trying to make?

I'm not familiar with reconciliation procedure, but how does it work when the committees completely fail to meet the targets outlined in the high level proposal?

[Kazinski]

They are also ending Medicare for illegal aliens, or anyone who isn't a permanent US resident, that will save billions, just in California. With a very few exceptions.

[Joe_dallas]

A reduction in the increase is not a "cut"

[Zarniwoop]

Car loan interest deduction
Eligible taxpayers could deduct up to $10,000 in interest annually from 2025 through 2028, for cars that were assembled in the US.

That seems like a lot. To hit the $10K limit, plugging in the just-googled average rate of 6.35% for a new car loan, that's a loan amount of ~$157K.

People who have 6-figure car loans don't need more tax breaks.

MAGA: bring back the high top marginal tax rates from the 1950s!

[Commenter_XY]

86 47

Q: Is posting these numbers a threat?
A: No, it is not.

[Frank Drackman]

we'll see what a Jury says

[not guilty]

In order to get to a jury, an indictment must survive a pretrial motion to dismiss (if made by the defense) and a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the prosecution's proof or after the close of all evidence (which the trial court can consider on a defense motion or sua sponte).

No such prosecution would survive here. See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707-708 (1969) (per curiam).

[Kazinski]

Oxford Languages defintion:

eigh·ty-six
/ˌādēˈsiks/
verbinformal•North American
verb: 86
1.
eject or bar (someone) from a restaurant, bar, etc.
"they were accused of cheating, and eighty-sixed from their favorite casino"
2.
reject, discard, or cancel.
"the passwords will be 86ed by next October"

That's what I always understood the meaning as, but maybe its changed.

[Michael P]

Various slang dictionaries indicate that it has a very broad set of meanings that can include "to kill".

[Armchair]

That's been my understanding. To "86" someone is to get rid of or kill them.

[Sarcastr0]

Various slang dictionaries!

[Michael P]

Cassell's Dictionary of Slang.
Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang.
The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English.

Most people would mend their halfwit denialist asshole ways, but not you!

[Sarcastr0]

Well I sure am owned.

Chery picking to get to a Well Ackshually moment is incredible debate skills. I cannot maintain.

[Bob from Ohio]

"halfwit "

You overrate his wit!

He doesn't like people contradicting him, I predict a loud "MUTED" any day.

[Joe_dallas]

Fits right in with the partisan ethical lapses from Comey.

Participation in the perpetuation of the russian hoax, even after discovering the steele dosier was funded by the HRC campaign.

Not firing Peter Strzok and the girl friend agent even though his actions were known to comey during summer of 2016.

Actions associated with getting Mueller appointed

compromised HRC investigation

just to name a few

[Riva]

Ethical lapses is putting it mildly. He just recently posted a rather serious threat. He's a disgrace and should be investigated. Indictments are too much to hope for but one can dream.

[not guilty]

No, James Comey should not be prosecuted here. (Apparently in Bizarro World Rivaworld "lawfare" by Republicans is hunky dory.)

Neither should folks who during the Obama administration wore t-shirts bearing the message "Psalms 109:8-9" have been prosecuted. ("Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow." KJV.)

[Riva]

Did a former FBI director wear that shirt? I must have missed that.

[Zarniwoop]

Do former FBI directors have a different set of laws applied to them? I must have missed that.

[David Nieporent]

Your monthly reminder that Russian attempts to aid Trump in the 2016 election was not a "hoax." It was 100% true.

Why on earth would anyone stop pursuing an investigation because they found out the Steele Dossier had been funded by the Clinton campaign? That's a reason to be cautious before taking action, but certainly not a reason not to investigate.

The rest is either silliness or extreme silliness.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't you mean $100,000.00 true?

[Riva]

The Russian collusion accusation against the Trump campaign was a hoax. There was foreign collusion. But the fraud was perpetrated by the only parties that actually colluded with foreign agents to undermine an election. That would be the Clinton campaign/ democrat party.

[DeAnnP]

First this meeting never happened. Then it did happen but it was about adoptions between Russia and USA. Then finally when Jr. knew he was busted, out come the emails

3 June 2016
Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr

Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras [a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona [presumably Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant], but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/donald-trump-jr-emails-full-text-russia-rob-goldstone

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 3 hours ago
"Why on earth would anyone stop pursuing an investigation because they found out the Steele Dossier had been funded by the Clinton campaign? "

Because at that point, the FBI, including Comey knew the dossier was fabricated. Demonstrating Comey's ethical issues.

[David Nieporent]

1) The dossier was not fabricated.
2) The dossier was not the basis for the investigation, which started before anyone had ever heard of Christopher Steele.

[Joe_dallas]

yea right - go ahead and keep being an active participant in perpetuating the fabrication.

At that point the fabricated plot was exposed.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 3 hours ago
"Your monthly reminder that Russian attempts to aid Trump in the 2016 election was not a "hoax." It was 100% true."

DN proudly announces he is either a willing dupe or is an active particpant in perpetuating the ruissian hoax. Somehow cant distinquish planted evidence.

[Kazinski]

How did all those lies work out in the end?

Dead enders like you are just an amusing footnote now.

And Biden was a sharp as a tack too, right?

[Joe_dallas]

Quite frankly its laughable that anyone would continue to repeat leftist talking points with all the issues and red flags.

[Kazinski]

Still, the most common meaning is to throw someone out of the premises.

[jb]

Wouldn't a normal person go to the more common usage rather than the obscure slangy usage that doesn't show up in normal dictionaries? Merriam Webster has a nice article on the history and usage of the term which includes this context around the "to kill" meaning:

Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of “to kill.” We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, I agree a normal person indeed would go to the more common usage of the "OK" gesture, selling something for 12 cents less than $15, and any other number of "ooooo, dog whistle!" campaigns over the last several years.

But we need an even-handed standard, not one that flip-flops depending on team jerseys.

[David Nieporent]

There are many many many products sold at the $X.99 price point. How many products are sold at an $X.88 price point? Let alone at $14.88 specifically?

[Brett Bellmore]

Used to be a gas station in my home town that ended all gas prices with .88, just to distinguish themselves from the competition. So it DOES happen occasionally.

[not guilty]

Working from memory here, but I have seen numerous products offered for sale by Walmart with a price ending in .88.

[Life of Brian]

How many products are sold at an $X.88 price point?

I take it you didn't even try to look before you asked. As one notoriously well-known example, Costco uses prices ending in .88 to indicate manager markdowns.

Let alone at $14.88 specifically?

Over 17,000 books alone on eBay right now are on sale for exactly $14.88; over 10k products right now on Amazon.

[Life of Brian]

And as I pointed out at the time, the infamous sale included an entire range of products for various prices that all ended in .88: $9.88, $14.88, $18.88, $19.88, and $29.88. Predictably, only the Dog Whistle™ price was reported.

[jb]

So which standard are you supporting?

[Life of Brian]

Same one I always have. I just wish it wasn't so bloody predictable that this current appeal to rationality is just to get through the current crisis and we'll shortly be right back to the Dog Whistle Blues.

[Armchair]

Depends on the context.

What if there's a picture of Trump right above them?

[Armchair]

Let's further elaborate on this concept. "Who" is saying something, and in what context is important.

So, Mr. Comey, in a social media post, shows a picture that says the following "86 47". In the picture, there is an apparent space between 86 and 47. What does this mean?

47 can be reasonably interpreted to mean the 47th President of the United States. Given Mr. Comey's background, this is not unreasonable. That just leave the question of what does "86" mean.

86 has several different interpretations. To remove someone from a bar. To "cancel" (as in regards to a password or food). But one of the interpretations is "To kill or assassinate." This was typically used by mobsters in regards to an individual.
(https://www.casino.org/news/vegas-myths-busted-eighty-six-was-slang-for-a-vegas-mob-hit/)

So, we need to look at two things. 1. Who is saying "86" and 2. "What is the object of the action".

2. The object of the action is the POTUS. It's not going to be "get rid of an item of food.
1. The person using it is Mr. Comey, who has a long history of dealing with organized crime. (as opposed to a bouncer in a club). For him, the word "86" would have the association used by organized crime.

A reasonable interpretation is that it represented a potential threat.

[Sarcastr0]

47 can be reasonably interpreted!
Mr. Comey, who has a long history of dealing with organized crime!
A reasonable interpretation!
A potential threat!

Trying to sound reasonable while weaseling and cobbling and straining for the drama via QAnon-level numerology nonsense.
Kinda like the MS-13 thing earlier.

The paranoid style of America politics sure can be pathetic.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

To interpret 8647 as an assassination threat is just stupid. It's no more a call for Trump to be assassinated than is a Let's Go Brandon tshirt a call for Joe Biden to be anally raped.

8647 t-shirts are for sale on Amazon as are 8646 t-shirts.

[Sarcastr0]

How pickled do you gotta be to push this.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, it's an assassination threat, but it's an unserious and deliberately deniable assassination threat, designed to be just enough to get that thrill, without carrying any legal liability.

Comey knew exactly what he was doing here, and he did calibrate it properly from a legal standpoint, so he gets away with it. That doesn't mean we have to pretend he wasn't doing it.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's telepathy is back at it again!

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"it's an assassination threat, "

Not the most stupid claim you've ever made, but still damned stupid.

If I buy an 8647 t-shirt from Amazon and wear it to an anti-Trump rally, am I advocating for his assassination? When I wore an 8645 t-shirt before the 2020 election was I advocating for his assassination? Is the kid in the Let's Go Brandon t-shirt advocating that Joe Biden be anally raped?

[William of Brooklyn]

I don't believe it's an "assassination threat" and I agree with you, it steers just clear of any legal liability. What it does suggest, is that the speaker is saying how thrilling it would be if Trump were gone. Given the speaker, and the fact that there have been two assassination attempts already on Trump, it is scurrilous and deeply irresponsible. But I agree, not illegal.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Cui bono?

That could only be one JD Vance(TM)...

[David Nieporent]

Eh, it's an assassination threat,

It's an "assassination threat" in exactly the same way "Get rid of Trump!" is an assassination threat, which is to say that it isn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, it a safely deniable threat.

You thought only the left could play at declaring things right-wingers say to be "dog-whistles"?

[Sarcastr0]

This sure read like you think 'get rid of Trump' is a death threat, just deniably so.

Pickled.

[Brett Bellmore]

From people who know damned well he's not going to be impeached, yeah, it's death threat. Just not a serious death threat.

Democrats have taken to thinking that obliquely suggesting he be killed is edgy. It's a style not serious intent.

But it can gradually morph into serious intent over time, if you keep it up.

[Sarcastr0]

People not having a detailed plan when they say 'get rid of bad politician man' doesn't mean it defaults to murder.

I sometimes wonder how you interact with people in real life.

Democrats have taken to thinking that obliquely suggesting he be killed is edgy.
You don't actually understand what Democrats are secretly thinking. You never do. It's all melodrama.

Remember how sure you were there would be widespread Democratic *civil unrest* after Trump was elected?

[ThePublius]

Well, then, why would Comey post this? Why, if not a statement about Trump? And the Director of the FBI surely knows what "86" means, or he's a total idiot.

Tell me why.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

I'm pretty sure that he knew he was referring to Trump. As for assassination, that's daft.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, it's progress.

They're no longer attaching indelible significance to obviously Photoshopped additions...

[jb]

If you look at the common definitions posted upthread, the reasonable reading would be "remove Trump" [from office].

I don't think anyone is arguing it's not about Trump; just that 86 means "to eject or remove" not "to kill" in its common usage.

[Krayt]

Like a target on someone, everyone flounces around saying it's a dangerous assassination suggestion, or just a saying of disapproval and trying to get someone fired or unelected, depending on the rhetoric needed for one's side in the daily game.

I always thought it had a more deathly attachment, but for rhetoric still would never think it was intended literally.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I always thought it had a more deathly attachment"

I don't believe I've ever heard it used in that way. Surely had not when I bought a bunch of 8645 t-shirts back in 2018 and still haven't.

[Riva]

So if MS-13, or any mob figure sent such a message, I guess the FBI and Secret Service would just laugh it off?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I guess the FBI and Secret Service would just laugh it off?"

You would be guessing correctly.

[Riva]

You do understand that you can actually agree that this extremely bad and outrageous conduct and still oppose the administration, don't you? TDS is not helping your cause.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"You do understand that you can actually agree that this extremely bad and outrageous conduct and still oppose the administration, don't you?"

It is not bad and outrageous conduct and to suggest that it is is just stupid.

[Riva]

If you’re bound and determined to look foolish and undermine your own credibility, I won’t stop you.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I won’t stop you."

What delusion is it that convinces you that you have any ability to influence anything?

[MoreCurious]

When Riva-Bot gets out of high school she hopes to become an influencer. That's going to be tough to do, Riva, since it's pretty obvious that no one here has ever been influenced by anything you've written.

[Riva]

And you trolls call supporters of President Trump fanatics.

[David Nieporent]

You would be guessing correctly.

Not in this administration; they'd take it as an excuse to put everyone of Salvadoran ancestry, including American citizens, into concentration camps.

[Riva]

If you're trying to show you're not a TDS deranged fanatic, this is not that thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Gotta love the dishonest left pretending not to know what “86” means. This is well known slang.

For example, back in the day when I was a cook, sometimes customers would order a meal without fries, and the waitress would put down “86 fries”. So I would take out my gun and shoot the fries off the plate.

[Zarniwoop]

Best comment today.

[DeAnnP]

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/86+46+t-shirts
https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1487642601536864256

[not guilty]

"A reasonable interpretation is that it represented a potential threat."

In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (per curiam), SCOTUS considered the constitutionality of a 1917 statute which prohibited any person from "knowingly and willfully * * * (making) any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States * * *.": The Court opined that the statute was constitutional, but must be interpreted to apply only to a "true threat" against the President:

Certainly the statute under which petitioner was convicted is constitutional on its face. The Nation undoubtedly has a valid, even an overwhelming, interest in protecting the safety of its Chief Executive and in allowing him to perform his duties without interference from threats of physical violence. See H.R.Rep. No. 652, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. (1916). Nevertheless, a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.

The Court concluded, "We do not believe that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner fits within that statutory term. . . . The language of the political arena . . . is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was 'a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.'" Id., at 708.

"True threats encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals." Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003), (citing Watts, 394 U.S. at 708).

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would be interesting to see how "86 46" would have been taken.
My guess is that it would have been considered a threat.

Heck, a 5-year-old's sending an email to (Circa 1998) Sox the Cat saying that he hates cats was taken as a threat.

[Michael P]

Comey was just copying Gretchen Whitmer.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/198163/shorthand-for-killing-someone-trump-campaign-disturbed-by-gretchen-whitmer-displaying-8645-in-background-for-interview/

[Sarcastr0]

Double down!

Same energy as the people breathlessly posting on social media that Walmart has 14.88 as the price for like an action figure.

[Riva]

Has TDS so corrupted you that you can't even criticize something as outrageous as this?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Why do you consider mild condmnation of Trump to be outrageous?

[Riva]

A threat coming from anyone would be potentially serious. Coming from the former director of the FBI, it becomes outrageous. Worth repeating: Has TDS so corrupted you that you can't even criticize something as outrageous as this?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

There was no threat.

[Riva]

I guess that answers my question.

[Zarniwoop]

You mean like this Tshirt, found on the very first Goog? Date first available: Oct 27, 2020.

A week ago you’d have been whining that “Dems and Libz are such hyuge snowflakes”.

[David Nieporent]

1) The cat's name was Socks, not Sox.
2) Cats do not generally have email accounts. Most can't even read.
3) Five year olds do not generally have email accounts, let alone in 1998.
4) What are you talking about?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Cats do not generally have email accounts. Most can't even read.

See: http://web.archive.org/web/19990117031155/http://whitehouse.gov/WH/kids/html/home.html

Five year olds do not generally have email accounts, let alone in 1998.

This was back in the days of dial-in and the child had watched his mother turn on and connect the home computer, and did likewise. I think it was via a mail-to link connected with the above, hence an email account would not be necessary.

The USSS traced the IP address back to the IHE and -- see below.

What are you talking about?

At a computer conference, the head of networking for the university where the child's mother worked (and hence the system she was dialing into, back when ISPs were only academic entities) discussed being visited by the USSS investigating a death threat against Socks the cat.

[David Nieporent]

1) That link does not in fact provide any way to send an email to Socks or any other cat, though I agree that one need not have an email address to use that web form.
2) In 1998, ISPs were not in fact only academic entities.
3) Your ratio of merely stupid stories to fake ones would improve immensely if you didn't rely on things you think you vaguely remember someone telling you decades ago.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "A: No, it is not."

Two Points:

1. Yes and no. I agree it isn't a threat, but a zillion people have learned anything that can be construed as a threat to the president can result in a visit by the Secret Service, proforma or not. You'd think Comey would know that.

2. Besides, I'm always eager to find common ground with right-wingers and this offers a chance. Whether you're a rational and thoughtful Leftie or a zombified cultist lackbrain Rightie, we can all agree Comey is loathsome. And though our reasons vary, the root cause is the same. The insufferable prig has a narcissistic obsession with his own status as the most righteous and ethical of men. I doubt he can pass a mirror without stopping to admire what a morally upright fellow he sees. With some, this might be a prod towards a blameless life. With Comey, it allows him to cut any corner & break any rule. After all, if you're the most ethical person who ever lived, anything you do must be justified, right?

This thinking resulted in serious mistakes that impacted both the Left and Right. So common ground for everyone at last!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Strangely, his actions just before the election are not often remembered by the Trumperverse as the single most likely reason why Clinton lost the 2016 election (well, apart from Hillary herself).

In their minds, he's the guy who tried--and failed--to stop Trump's election in 2016.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"but a zillion people have learned anything that can be construed as a threat to the president can result in a visit by the Secret Service, proforma or not."

You'd think they'd do something about all those people selling 8645, 8646, and 8647 t-shirts on Amazon. And, why didn't I get a visit from them when I painted 8645 on my garage door in three foot tall characters -- probably visible from the space shuttle?

Back then, we lived in Houston in an area just north of downtown known as the Heights where it was safe to express opinions in opposition to Trump. Now we live about 40 miles north in Montgomery County which is not the Trump-sucking center of the Texas universe (that would be Hockley County) but politically pretty close. Around here, if you don't swoon over all things MAGA, it's best to keep your opinions to yourself and your back to the wall in case you encounter any Let's Go Brandon people.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A: No, it is not."

Don't be hasty. Needs a special counsel appointed to investigate, maybe FBI going thru his wife's lingerie drawer for evidence.

[Martinned]

In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer talking like he's from the far right has resulted in his popularity plummeting among his base, for no gain whatsoever on the right. Gee, it's almost as if repeating the far right's talking points on immigration is bad politics...

Keir Starmer's net favourability rating has dropped 12pts in a month to -46, his lowest level ever, including a 34pt drop among Labour voters

All Britons: -46 net rating (down 12 from 13-14 Apr)

By 2024 vote
Labour: -5 (down 34)
Lib Dem: -13 (down 12)
Conservative: -76 (up 1)
Reform: -94 (down 5)

https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lpbk6a32b22u

[Kazinski]

It was apparent in the council elections that their popularity was plummeting, that's when they panicked.

REF (Reform UK: 677 councillors, 677 councillors gained)
LD (Liberal Democrat: 370 councillors, 163 councillors gained)
CON (Conservative: 319 councillors, 674 councillors lost)
LAB (Labour: 98 councillors, 187 councillors lost)
IND (Independent: 89 councillors, 20 councillors lost)
GRN (Green: 79 councillors, 44 councillors gained)

https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2025/england/results

[Martinned]

As the Dutch saying goes, panick is a bad counsellor.

[Speaking for normal people]

11
Seek no advice from a woman about her rival,

from a coward about war,

from a merchant about business,

from a buyer about value,

from a miser about generosity,

from a cruel person about well-being,

from a worthless worker about his work,

from a seasonal laborer about the harvest,

from an idle slave about a great task—

pay no attention to any advice they give.

[Bob from Ohio]

I understand the rest but why "from a merchant about business,"?

[David Nieporent]

Why do the Dutch have sayings in English? And why can't they spell "panic"?

[Sarcastr0]

Labour got tilted by Reform's performance in that off-election and it doesn't look like they're gonna pull out of it anytime soon.

They're doing a lot of telling not showing; that's a bad sign.

[Martinned]

And the weirdest thing is that this is based on a complete misreading of the election results. If you look at votes instead of seats what you see is Tory voters running to Reform in droves, and Labour voters going to the LibDems and the Greens. The result is a three-way split on the left and Reform picking up lots of seats. But that doesn't mean that Labour is losing lots of votes to Reform, and that it needs to start repeating Reform talking points to somehow win those voters back.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled yesterday that child protective services was wrong to vaccinate a child over the religious objections of her parents. Forced medical treatement is allowed when "the child is unlikely to survive without treatment." Otherwise, as long as the child is only in "temporary" state custody the will of the parents must be respected. Somebody apparently got a bee in her bonnet about vaccinating this child.

More specifically, there is nothing in the record explaining why the department elected not to vaccinate the child's siblings but insists that vaccinating this child is necessary. These exemptions and inconsistencies undermine the department's contention that allowing this child to remain unvaccinated would substantially hinder the achievement of the health benefits provided by uniform vaccination administration.

Care and protection of Eve, https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/05/15/c13672.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

The only good social worker is a dead one.

[Estragon]

You need help.

[Mr. Bumble]

A social worker?

[Estragon]

I’m not sure even an exorcism would fix whatever has gone so very wrong with this dude.

[Bob from Ohio]

Maybe stop responding to him? He gets such outrage from you guys, you are just encouraging him.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.breitbart.com/pre-viral/2025/05/14/house-democrat-to-introduce-reparations-resolution-moral-and-legal-obligation-for-u-s-to-pay-trillions-of-dollars/

Suppose a future Congress debates a reparations bill.

What is the legal rationale for the reparations payments?

[Martinned]

It's a bill, the whole point of it is to *create* a legal rationale where previously there wasn't one. That's what laws do.

[Michael P]

Budget bills don't create rationales, they instead appropriate money or authorize spending.

[Brett Bellmore]

Saying you're going to do X is an entirely different thing than providing a rationale for doing X. The latter is giving your reason for doing it, rather than just saying you're going to do it.

Now, assuming the bill were to be enacted into law, the bare fact that it became law would be a rationale for the executive branch to carry out its terms. But that's not what XY was asking, he was asking what reason the legislature could provide for enacting it in the first place.

"Because we can, so there!" is not much of a rationale, even if you seem to think it would suffice.

[Zarniwoop]

The Q was “what is the legal rationale”.

Martinned succinctly answered the Q. Correctly, IMHO, because removing the word “legal” from the above sentence changes the fundamental meaning.

If C_XY wants to ask about the moral, ethical, logical, functional, or WhateverTF other rationale … that’s a totally legit Q too. That he can ask. By using a different phrase than “legal rationale”.

Feel free to debate the moral etc basis if you want. Dunking on Martinned here is dumb.

[Krayt]

As the federal government is no where near a balanced budget, by design borrowing not according to a rational analysis of need, but by what they can get away with as a fraction of GDP, with no intention to ever alter this chronic situation, every penny of such a thing will be heaved onto the debt.

"Why should I have to pay for it? I had nothing to do with it!"

"Don't worry. It'll be paid for by people not yet born. See? We do love fetuses!"

[Krayt]

And don't forget to buy up stores nearby, and good housing, beforehand, so you can jack up prices for local inflation of suddenly overstuffed wallets. No reason the power monger class can't get a big finger in that pie!

[Speaking for normal people]

NONE. THis would require legal definitions, enforcement, bureaucracy to find where on the spectrum of blackness your genetic data falls. Eg A white woman married to a Black man ,he gets reparations and white woman benefits.

10.8% of married Black American men have a non-Black spouse

If Kamala could claim seh's Black and Sen Warren is Cherokee, only a fool doesn't see what 'power' can define

[Frank Drackman]

"10.8% of married Black American men have a non-Black spouse"
Wonder what the % is for Black NBA/NFL/MLB (I'd say "NHL" but are there any Black NHL Players currently? you'd think you'd notice them against the White ice) players??

[Dr. Ed 2]

At least half of Black Americans arrived after 1860, and many of them are members of the tribes that enslaved & sold Africans as slaves.

[David Nieporent]

At least half of Black Americans arrived after 1860,

Is this as true as everything else you write? Why, yes, it is.

(And I'm not even debiting for the poor phrasing; I assume you meant that at least half of Black Americans are descended from those who arrived after 1860.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

What about subrogation?

One white man from the north died for every 10 slaves freed.
Shouldn't we ask those 10 for damages?

[Frank Drackman]

I've been saying that for years Ed,
"I'm all for "Reparations, how much are they going to pay us for freeing them?"
Oh wait, you say "We" didn't free them? OK, but "They" weren't slaves either

[Dr. Ed 2]

My Great-great-grandfathers (2) fought to do that, one came home without his leg and the other never did. Died "Hospital Washington" whatever that means.

[jb]

What is the legal rationale for the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act? Do you think there's a reason that heirs of Holocaust victims deserve society to take steps to try to make them whole for the sins perpetrated on their ancestors more than the heirs of victims of slavery?

[Riva]

Because the expropriated property and identified rightful beneficiaries actually exist? Just spit balling.

[jb]

That's a question of practicality, not legal rationale.

[Riva]

Verifiable beneficiaries under the law and actual property belonging to the estate actually provide a very sound legal foundation. But do go on with the nonsense if it makes you feel better.

[Bob from Ohio]

Racism of course! Or maybe the dirty Jews controlling Congress!

[not guilty]

"Suppose a future Congress debates a reparations bill.

"What is the legal rationale for the reparations payments?"

"What's past is prologue." W. Shakespeare, The Tempest Act 2, Scene I.

Here is a precedent from the Reagan administration: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter52&edition=prelim

[John F. Carr]

Also from the Massachusetts SJC, a careless prosecutor lost a case about illegal possession of a rifle. There was no testimony that the firearm in question had a rifled barrel. The SJC declined to assume that jurors ignored safety warnings and inspected the interior of the gun, which was provided as an exhibit, looking for something they didn't understand.

The SJC probably took the case because it presents a common theme post-Bruen. The defendant was also convicted of possession of ammunition without a license. (It was legally possible to have a license to carry ammunition but not a gun.)
He didn't prove he had a license. Under the new constitutional regime the prosecution must prove lack of a license. Applying the state law "clairvoyance exception" to failure to object, the SJC ordered a new trial with the correct burden of proof.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/05/15/c24P0235.pdf

[apedad]

" . . . the prosecution must prove lack of a license. "

How does one prove a negative?

[Speaking for normal people]

Anybody here ever ever take Rhetoric or Logic or Grammar

If it were possible to prove that we can't prove a negative, then the existence of the proof would defeat the claim, because we would have proven a negative.

[Bored Lawyer]

Presumably, there are public records of who has a license and who doesn't. The prosecutor calls someone who has access to the records, who testifies there is no record of the defendant being granted a license. That prima facie establishes the fact of no license. The defendant can then rebut it with his own evidence, if he can.

(Same thing if someone were prosecuted for driving without a license.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"The prosecutor calls someone who has access to the records, who testifies there is no record of the defendant being granted a license. That prima facie establishes the fact of no license."

Not at all incidentally, BATF records are in such bad shape that, IIRC, at least one court HAS ruled that the fact that they lacked a record was not, in fact, sufficient evidence that the defendant hadn't complied with the law.

[ThePublius]

A Massachusetts FID or LTC has nothing to do with the BATF.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just confirming that it's not utterly unknown for an agency's records to be in such bad shape that a court would refuse to take the absence of a record as evidence of anything.

[John F. Carr]

See Massachusetts guide to evidence section 1005(b) and rule of criminal procedure 40(b).

"A written statement that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records designated by the statement ... is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such record or entry."

The trier of fact is not obliged to take such evidence as conclusive proof.

[not guilty]

How does one prove the lack of a firearms license?

In a manner similar to prosecuting for willful failure to file an income tax return. The prosecution there would offer evidence that the defendant had income sufficient to trigger a filing requirement and would offer testimony from IRS employee(s) to testify that they had performed a diligent search for a tax return filed by or on behalf of the defendant and that search did not yield evidence of the filing. The witnesses offered by the prosecution would of course be subject to cross-examination, and the defense would have the option -- though it is not required -- to produce countervailing proof of its own.

For the firearms license, the prosecution would need to offer evidence that the accused was a person subject to licensing requirements and offer a custodian of records from the office(s) where records of licenses are filed to testify that they had performed a diligent search for a record of a license having been issued to the accused, which search yielded no evidence of such record.

[Brett Bellmore]

This rings the same in my ears as if they'd said "illegal possession of a book", or "possession of paper and ink without a license".

It's a constitutional obscenity that the Court allows for an instant any sort of 'licensing' for the exercise of a constitutional right. Rights being just precisely the things you do NOT need the government's permission to do, and a license being that permission.

[Sarcastr0]

Parades need a license. So do protests.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about riots?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not if you do them on private property. And the question wasn't "illegal possession on government property", it was "illegal possession" anywhere.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "It's a constitutional obscenity that the Court allows for an instant any sort of 'licensing' for the exercise of a constitutional right."

No new goalposts.

[Michael P]

"No new goalposts" says the guy who demanded rigorous "proof" to support a claim of "appears to be".

The licenses for parades and protests are for use of public property that excludes or interferes with others' use of that same property. It's not for having a parade or protest in abstract.

[SRG2]

Should Federal prisoners be permitted guns? The Bellmore version of the Constitution would permit it. How about carrying weapons into Federal courtrooms? Bellmore permits it. Guns in Federal buildings in general? Bellmore permits it.

[ducksalad]

Meh, those are not very good reductios.

Prisoners lose lots of rights, including ones much more universal than bearing arms. Likewise courtrooms, in session, aren't venues for exercising rights like freedom of speech or religion.

Neither exception has anything to do with licenses or their absence, and no reasonable person would say the courtroom exceptions somehow justify requiring licenses to engage in speech or religion in general.

As for guns in federal buildings in general, why not? I see no reason why a post office or exhibit hall at a national park is more sensitive than a grocery store.

[SRG2]

The Constitution is absolute and categorical in its statement "shall not" - no allowance for reasonableness. circumstance, etc. Yes, we expect people to lose rights in prison, etc - but the language of 2A admits of no exception if you are going to read it the way that 2A advocates do.

[ducksalad]

SRG2, my general opinion about rights and exceptions to them, not just the 2A:

I find particularly noxious the mode of argument that if you can prove there is already one exception to an absolute right, that somehow justifies creating even more exceptions. It's morally equivalent to the sickening argument that rape isn't as serious if the woman's been raped previously.

It should be just the opposite. The fact that too much has already been given up means further encroachments need to be resisted especially hard, and that we need to consider revoking existing exceptions.

I favor legalizing shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's worth an occasional tragedy to take that particular attack on free speech off the table for good.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would restore their rights in full just as soon as their sentences are up. EVERY right. I find the idea of second class citizens extremely offensive. Either in prison or a free man.

And if the government wants to bar possession of guns in a facility, which is not an unreasonable thing to do for at least SOME sorts of facilities, (But NOT all of them!) it should be required at a minimum to assume responsibility for the safety of the people in that facility, and provide lockers for the storage of those firearms so as to not leverage the prohibition into a constructive ban on being armed on your way to them.

[SRG2]

i.e., "shall not be infringed except in circumstances where we deem it reasonable to do so"

[Brett Bellmore]

I won't say that the government is exactly as entitled to control access to its own property as a private owner is, but it is not totally lacking in that area.

Contrary to what Sarcastr0 would say, I'm not unreasonable. I just want the 2nd amendment treated by the courts with the same respect as the 1st gets.

[Ridgeway]

You should think that all the way through, because you would also be getting rid of all the restrictions associated with parole, probation, work-release, etc.

To me, lifetime loss of certain civil rights as a consequence of a felony conviction was simply a part of the punishment that was understood by all, so nobody thought it necessary to include in all the specific sentences for individual crimes.

I have no issue revisiting the issue and putting objective conditions (or no conditions at all) on restoration of various civil rights after release, but a simple "prisoner/free man" dichotomy is unworkably simplistic.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You should think that all the way through, because you would also be getting rid of all the restrictions associated with parole, probation, work-release, etc."

Parole and probation are generally considered a portion of your sentence that you get to serve outside of prison. I said once the sentence is served.

"To me, lifetime loss of certain civil rights as a consequence of a felony conviction was simply a part of the punishment..."

Understand, though, my position on this isn't that the rights should be restored for the benefit of the criminal. I'm fine with the idea of loss of rights as a punishment. And quite sympathetic to the idea that, for instance, felons shouldn't be permitted to vote because they presumably have interests that run contrary to the law abiding citizenry, and will advance them with their votes.

Rather, I'm concerned with the mechanics of maintaining a system where exercise of rights by people outside of jail can be conditioned on status. It's absurdly easy to leverage such a system to infringe the rights of the innocent.

[Michael P]

The conspiracy theory about delaying the results of the COVID-19 vaccine in order to influence the 2020 election appears to be true.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/15/politics/pfizer-covid-vaccine-house-republicans

How many people were hospitalized or died needlessly because of this?

[Kazinski]

Well we already know they lied about the efficacy of the vaccine, the question is whether its actionable to delay a lie.

Well its also a.question of whether delaying the news for political reasons is a crime anyway although their may have been reporting requirements to the government that were breached.

But in any case the vaccine was not available for distribution until at least a month after the announcement, and even then in small quantities, so I don't think any deaths can be attributed to iit, if it happened.

But that does not mean knowing the truth is unimportant.

[Sarcastr0]

The article says Republicans declared they are investigating.

That isn’t anything appearing to be true.

The GOP investigate a ton of stupid shit.

[Michael P]

Denialist ignores the evidence. Still not news.

“According to the human resources representative, when asked what prompted his request, Dr. Dormitzer made a comment to the effect of: ‘Let’s just say it wasn’t a coincidence, the timing of the vaccine’,” the letter adds.

Jordan also quoted GSK claiming that Dormitzer told his former colleagues at the company “in late 2020, the three most senior people in Pfizer R&D were involved in a decision to deliberately slow down clinical testing so that it would not be complete prior to the results of the presidential election that year.”

[Sarcastr0]

For fuck's sake.
Do you even know what proof looks like?

One dude via hearsay ain't it.

"appears to be true" is not supported.

In contrast to you, I wish the GOP were better than it seems, not that it be revealed to be secretly super extra worse.

But hate likes to be validated.

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

Nice midwittery!

[Michael P]

I wish. Typically the best we get from the denialists is halfwittery.

[Kazinski]

That's not proof, but predicate for an investigation.

Pfizer was under contract to the government, so it certainly is a legitimate subject for Congressional investigation.

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP hasn’t needed predicate for an investigation for decades.

Your incredible levels of gullibility are part of why.

[Kazinski]

No Congress has, it certainly isn't just the GOP.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you have in mind on the Dem side? You mostly seem to post for truth GOP investigation announcements.

Dems recently did January 06, which sure had a helluva predicate...what else?

[jb]

Well, gee. In that same article:

"Pfizer’s CEO has previously said that the vaccine timing had nothing to do with politics."

I guess we can just choose to believe whatever statement we want without any other corroborating evidence one way or the other.

The underlying theory here seems pretty dumb, though: presumably Pfizer wanted to sell vaccines. Why would they intentionally slow roll the results which would mean that it would take longer for them to be able to do so, and make it more likely that other vaccines would take more market share from them?

[Sarcastr0]

Operation Warp Speed, among other things, got rid of a ton of cost controls for vaccine acquisition. The profit motive is absolutely on the Trump reelection side of the ledger.

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

Well, after the request, Pfizer created a new policy to burn all the evidence.

So Pfizer was just following policy! Just like the IRS with their targeting evidence.

¯\(ツ)/¯

[apedad]

Trump Dismisses COVID-19 Vax Safety Claims, Says He Saved 100 Million Lives

Former President Donald Trump has dismissed claims that COVID-19 vaccines are broadly unsafe while asserting that his own role in the development of the vaccines may have saved 100 million lives.

Trump touted the effectiveness of Operation Warp Speed, his administration's program to accelerate the development of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, during a Monday interview on the conservative podcast The Water Cooler.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-he-saved-100-million-lives-covid-vaccines-1774178

Would some please tell me if I should be outraged or not!

Mucho beaucoup.

[Jerry B.]

“Would some please tell me if I should be outraged or not!”

Do you want to feel outraged? If so, go ahead. If not, just ignore it.

[SRG2]

Schroedinger's Vaccine: it works because of Trump's involvement but was ineffective because of Fauci.

[grb]

Nice!

[David Nieporent]

Trump Dismisses COVID-19 Vax Safety Claims, Says He Saved 100 Million Lives

How lame. He saved over 200 million lives in just the last few months by taxing fentanyl.

[grb]

Here's what's really funny : The night before Bondi made the "258 million lives saved" howler in a cabinet meeting, she had a social media post making the same claim with a 119 million figure. So:

1. Either Trump decided the 119 lie wasn't lie enough.
2. Or Trump saved 139 million people overnight.

I report; you decide!

[David Nieporent]

What about that link leads you to believe that this conspiracy theory "appears to be true"?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Bit of trivia.

The 1980s film Saving Grace had a Pope Leo XIV.

"Leo" also makes me think of West Wing.

[Frank Drackman]

I think of Leo "The Lip" Durocher, who while not from Chicago, did manage the Cubs from 1966-1972 (535-526 over 7 years, hey, they were the Cubs) and had Cameo appearances in "The Munsters" "Mr. Ed" and "The Beverly Hillbillies"
Leo supposedly said "Nice Guys finish Last" but like the great Yogi said, Leo didn't say most of the things he's supposed to have said.

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

>But Judge Wormuth, a former federal prosecutor, said the federal government had failed to show that the migrants actually knew they were unlawfully entering a restricted military area. He has dismissed charges against 98 migrants so far as he works through the docket

https://archive.is/pqBDM#selection-717.0-717.267

According to Democrats, you can trespass in a restricted military area if you didn't "know" you were in a military area.

I'm guessing Democrats are only going to hold up that standard if you're an illegal or a Chinaman.

[A Japanese Student]

Two words: mens rea. Common to almost all crimes, including felon-in-possession.

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

The illegals are intentionally illegally crossing our legal military borders.

They weren't just wondering around and accidentally stepped in a secure military zone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Every military area I have seen has had a 10 foot fence with US Government Property signs on it. Climbing the fence and going over the barbed wire is something requiring actual thought.

[Frank Drackman]

That's mostly a post 9-11 thang, in 1972 we'd walk from the off-base Pubic Screwel right through a hole in the (non barbed wire, more like 6 feet tall) fence surrounding Ellsworth AFB to get home, sometimes with a B52 flying over (not armed with Nukes, they stopped carrying Nukes in flight in 1968)
A few years later after youth baseball games we'd walk from "Fleet Park" in No-Fuck Vagina, climb over the (non barbed wire fence) to Norfolk Navy base to go to the Burger King, then check out the ships currently in port (saw the Nimitz right after it's christening May 1975)
Even in the 1990s morning traffic was so heavy at Camp Lejeune that they didn't check IDs or Base Stickers from 6am-9am, you could have driven the Russian Army in if you wanted, did allow Marines with cars that didn't pass NC's bogus "Safety Inspection" to get to work, was there last year, and it's like Checkpoint Charlie 1962 with all the Jersey Barriers, Explosives Sniffing Dogs, Mirrors on a Stick, M-16's,

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Hole in the fence" means that the fence was there.

I'm particularly thinking of Fort Devens in the '90s -- 10 miles of Mass Route 2 goes through it, and both sides were fenced, even the parts where it was swampland with standing water.

The fence wasn't well maintained, with trees down on it in places, but it was there.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "Every military area I have seen has had a 10 foot fence with US Government Property signs on it."

That's not completely true, Ed, but you're missing the overall picture. Look up this story and find a map. This "military area" isn't a military area at all. It's a miniscule sliver of land a few inches deep (yes, that's just barely an exaggeration) running 180-miles along the New Mexico border. It has no military function or use. It would be impossible for it to have any military function or use. It's just another stunt from our all-gimmick president. So all of Magnus' indignation over brown-skinned people invading our "secure military zones" is just further evidence of his ignorance and imbecility.

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

>It has no military function or use.

A security perimeter for the country. Holy cow, how could you not figure that one out?

[Mr. Bumble]

"The "Code of Federal Regulations" contains 48,000 sections spanning 175,000 pages. Each and every one of those regulations is backed by the full force of law. An estimated (because no one wants to spend their life calculating it) 300,000 federal regulations carry criminal penalties for violating them."
.....
""Many of these regulatory crimes are 'strict liability' offenses, meaning that citizens need not have a guilty mental state to be convicted of a crime," Trump notes. "This status quo is absurd and unjust. It allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it."

The "strict liability" offense is the bane of modern life. When the government charges you with a crime, even though you didn't know it was illegal, it violates the ancient mens rea standard, or "state of mind." Almost all crimes used to require proving that you intended to commit the crime or were aware of the circumstances that made it criminal. Tens of thousands of regulatory transgressions have subsumed that standard, each carrying criminal penalties
https://pjmedia.com/rick-moran/2025/05/15/the175000-pages-of-federal-regulations-make-a-mockery-of-the-term-rule-of-law-n4939820

[Brett Bellmore]

The rule that "ignorance of the law is no defense" was based on the notion that most laws were prohibiting acts that were malum in se, wrong in and of themselves, so that anybody with an intact conscience would be aware that they shouldn't be engaged in those acts even if they weren't on notice that they were illegal.

The residue were regulations of conduct in areas where you'd have a responsibility to be aware of the law, and the law was limited enough that satisfying that responsibility was feasible.

At one time this was a fairly good approximation of the state of the law, but hasn't been remotely true for a very long time. Now 'ignorance of the law is no defense' because otherwise most laws would be unenforceable on account of there being so many malum prohibitum laws that it is humanly impossible to know every law you might run afoul of.

[Noscitur a sociis]

An observation which of course has nothing to do with whether something is a strict liability offense or not.

[Michael P]

Mens rea means that an offender is at minimum aware of the "facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense" (Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994)). It does not require specific knowledge that the conduct is illegal.

[jb]

In this case, that would require knowing that there was a military base that they were trespassing on.

[Speaking for normal people]

People who contrive their ignorance so as to allow themselves to act in an unlawful manner are possibly even more culpable than mere knowing actors, and are similar to purposeful offenders (Luban 1999, pp. 968–69; See also Aquinas 1942 (1265–1274), q. 76 art. 4).

DELIBERATE IGNORANCE AND THE LAW
Eyal Zamir and Roi Yair

[apedad]

Trump Solicitor General Hedges on Always Following Court Orders

The federal government will “generally respect circuit precedent, but not necessarily in every case,” Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices during oral arguments Thursday over Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

Several administration officials, and even the president himself, have suggested that the executive doesn’t need to follow what it sees as unlawful judicial actions, raising concerns of a potential constitutional crisis.

Sauer’s comments echoed those he made during his confirmation hearing Feb. 26, at which he said that “generally if there’s a direct court order that binds a federal or state official, they should follow it.”

But he wondered whether the US would have been better off if the president had declined to follow the court’s infamous 1944 ruling in Korematsu v. United States, in which the justices upheld the internment of Japanese Americans.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trumps-solicitor-general-again-wont-commit-to-obeying-courts.

What a fucking idiot.

The court did not ORDER the interement of Japanese Americans but merely that the program was constitutional.

The president could have easily just decided not to do the interements.

President Trump doesn't pick high quality people.

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

Josh has an article up on this topic.

This is standard DOJ posture.

[jb]

Apparently a surprise to Justice Coney Barrett at least.

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

Well, she's just a White Kenjati so she's quite an idiot.

[William of Brooklyn]

But the district court DID originally order the Trump administration to retrieve Garcia from El Salvador, which -- like declaring war on Belgium -- is beyond the Judiciary's valid powers, and therefore has been rightly ignored. The SC made this clear in their ruling, noting the foreign policy prerogatives that are part of any president's "exclusive and preclusive" powers, but the district court decided not to *get* that message. So yes, sometimes Court orders should be ignored. I can think of another instance, where some local judge "ordered" (Missouri, was it?) to raise taxes. Absolute abuse of power, and rightly to be responded to with "Go fish."

[David Nieporent]

The SC made this clear in their ruling,

They "made this clear" by not saying it?

[Mr. Bumble]

There once was a man from Nantucket
who had cocaine by the bucket...
Nantucket drug bust

The limericks write themselves. The U.K. Daily Mail reports,

A suspected drug dealer caught up in Nantucket’s biggest ever coke bust has been defended by residents as ‘a person of high character working towards bettering himself.’

Locals came out in support of Francisco Fernandez Sanchez, 31, this week after police say they busted him with over 2.5 kg of cocaine alongside an array of drug paraphernalia and scales.

[Frank Drackman]

Doing those jobs Amuricans won't do!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Locals came out in support"

Customers?

Might be useful to investigate those locals.

[John F. Carr]

The Trump Administration is enforcing an old law fining aliens who do not obey removal orders. A woman who was ordered to leave in 2005 was recently fined $1,821,350. The fine is said to be $500 per day for 20 years. (I know, the math doesn't work out.)

She can contest the fine if she appears in person.

Her lawyer argues she was never notified of the potential for a fine. I don't see why that matters. Courts don't like "ignorance of the law" as a defense. Personally, I think per day fines should not accumulate under such circumstances, but that's not the way the law usually works. Maybe she has a statute of limitations defense that would reduce the fine from a lot more than she can ever pay down to more than she can ever pay.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/undocumented-immigrant-1-point-82-million-dollar-fine-failing-to-leave-u-s-after-2005-removal-order/

[A Japanese Student]

Maybe the Excessive Fines Clause?

[John F. Carr]

The Institute for Justice has challenged similar daily fines for municipal ordinance violations. IJ does not have a consistent winning record.

[Sarcastr0]

Deciding to enforce a previously unenforced law does raise notice and reliance issues.

And the size of the charge is also an issue...unless you're performing a reality TV spot for the FOX News crowd.

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

Prosecutorial discretion.

Simple as that. You break the law at your own risk.

[Michael P]

You don't get it. Leftists and their favored client groups (drug dealers, terrorists, child molesters, etc.) rely on being able to break the law without punishment. That's a reliance interest, that is. It's double super secret unconstitutional for the government to actually enforce the law against Democrat client groups. Meanwhile, conservatives who challenge school misconduct in school board meetings get trespass warnings and FBI files.

[apedad]

It must suck being you.

[Frank Drackman]

Ditto

[apedad]

C'mon Frankie.

I'll have to mute you if you're just going to make lame, "Ditto" comments.

You make zero factual, legal arguments and the only thing you have going for you is your (admittedly sorry-ass) attempt at being witty.

If you're not even going to do that then adios amigo.

[Sarcastr0]

Somehow the reliance interest I learned about in law school was nonpartisan.

Seems a pretty good idea that the government can't say 'we started enforcing this law years ago, or maybe even did so retroactively. We didn't tell you so here's a surprise fine.'

Surprise fines are kind of center-mass at raising notice issues.

[SRG2]

I don't see why that matters. Courts don't like "ignorance of the law"

Because she was nor ignorant of the law she was ignorant of the order(or so she claims). It is unambiguously part of due process that you have to be informed, and precedent says it must be clear.

[Malika the Maiz]

What’s more interesting, that Mad King “Two Dolls” Donnie went from “I will lower prices on day one” to “BE PATIENT” in about 100 days or that his loyalists continue to bend the knee to the Don’s Con?

[Frank Drackman]

Done tole you, ain't got no job, how I spose' to get money to pay dis Rent? Had breakfast in a Hampton Inn this morning, more Scramby Eggs than you could shake a stick at (OK, now shaking a stick at Eggs would be a little weird) and it's all you can eat, and included in the cost of the room! Like Cousin Eddie, I put some in a plastic bag for later

Frank

[Michael P]

Why did you do something so mean to Cousin Eddie? You know he doesn't like that plastic bag.

[Frank Drackman]

and I got him some extra packets of the (Real) Tomato Ketchup, nothing but the best for Cousin Eddie!!!!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Let’s say the US had developed a more robust multi-party tradition. Maybe something like Germany where there are two big parties like CDU/SDP but a lot of competitive medium and smaller parties that get legislative seats, and new parties can more easily get into office. Parties rarely obtained a majority in either the House or Senate and generally had to enter coalitions. Presidential candidates rarely won the electoral college outright let alone a majority of the popular vote. The House was routinely picking the President (and the Senate the VP) due to coalition votes.

What would Presidential power look like? Would presidents be more constrained because they routinely lacked popular backing and owed their position to coalition partners? Or would they feel free to do whatever because once they’re in, they’re in and the coalition would be too fractured to stop them? Would Congress press its institutional interests more against the executive because coalition members demand it?

[Armchair]

Oh sure...

Presidential power would likely be more restrained in such a situation. With far more in the way of states rights/local rule. Until...the Crisis broke out.

The situation you imagine parallels the early days of the Union. The election of 1824 and 1860 illustrate this, as each had 4 candidates for President which brought in at least 10% of the popular vote each. Regionalism would be the order of the day however, as a candidate which brought in 25% of the popular across all states would have zero electoral college votes, while one which brought in 25% of the popular vote, but centered in 1/3 of the states would have major electoral vote strength.

The US Civil War really broke the multi-party mold, as the advantages of a strong Presidency came to the fore. A weak president for the Union would not have won.

For the sake of argument, let's say the Civil War "doesn't happen" and the multi-party model persists and is enhanced, as you propose. WWI likely wouldn't see a US intervention. WWII also would likely not see a major US intervention (outside of Japan). The divided power makes strong foreign policy choices less likely.

[A Japanese Student]

Japanese Diet has passed several bills today.

Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment, passed 211-18, digitizes almost all aspects of criminal procedure. Say goodbye to escorting physical warrant papers from a court while convincing not-yet-legally-arrested suspect not to leave - arrest and search warrants can now be issued electronically. The bill also authorizes remote court hearings and gag order for electronic searches. Guess we'll see canaries here soon. (The order expires after one year.)

Another bill, passed 209-19, authorizes FISA-like surveillance to counter cyberattacks.

[apedad]

Supreme Court broadens standard for unreasonable force claims against police

(In 2016) Ashtian Barnes, 24, was killed during the routine stop. He had been driving his girlfriend’s rental car, which had outstanding toll violations, when stopped by officer Roberto Felix Jr.

After Barnes was asked to present his license and insurance, the car started moving forward. Felix jumped onto the vehicle’s doorsill and shot inside, striking Barnes twice and killing him.

The exchange turned deadly in seconds. The justices were asked to weigh whether courts should examine everything that happened during the traffic stop or just the moment when Felix feared for his safety when evaluating an excessive force claim.

In a 9-0 decision, they said the so-called “moment of the threat” doctrine should not be applied in such cases, instead directing courts to review the “totality of the circumstances.”

“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5301842-supreme-court-rules-on-police-force/

As a retired federal officer, I absolutely agree with the Court's decision.

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

>retired federal officer,

Of course. With all that constant bootlicking you do and lack of general intelligence this makes perfect sense. Of course you're a govie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And likely Affirmative Retribution to boot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" rental car, which had outstanding toll violations,"

WTF?

It's the registered owner (the rental company) that's responsible for toll violations, not the renter. (Every rental contract I've ever signed had a part about how those and parking tickets could then be charged to my credit card.)

So why is the officer stopping the vehicle for this?

And how is a vehicle going AWAY FROM the officer a threat to him/her/it? Maybe to another officer or the public, but to the officer?!?

[John F. Carr]

Ownership of a car is at least reasonable suspicion of being the driver. If Dr. Ed 2 has a warrant police can pull over every car registered in his name to see if he is inside. It is not clear from the Supreme Court opinion if the officer knew the car was registered to a corporation. Courts do not require dispatchers to do a good job.

[David Nieporent]

In Kansas v. Glover, decided in 2020, SCOTUS ruled that the fact that the owner of a vehicle had a suspended license gave police reasonable suspicion to pull over the vehicle w/o first ascertaining whether the owner was the one driving the vehicle.

[Frank Drackman]

The "Car started moving forward"
by itself? was her name "Christine"???
Well 2 can play this game
"Officer Felix's gun "went off"
"Barnes got in the way of a bullet"

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Apeded: "After Barnes was asked to present his license and insurance, the car started moving forward."

Do you talk like that in real life? That's glaring obfuscation of a most relevant action of the driver.

The SCOTUS opinion is much less circumspect: "Felix ordered Barnes to exit the vehicle, but Barnes began to drive away."

Jeez, Louise, can you say it straight, please?

[apedad]

That's from the article.

I always comment after the link.

[Bob from Ohio]

They have these newfangled things, I think called "quotation marks". Maybe you should use them.

[Malika the Maiz]

The Government's "Domicile" Argument on Birth Citizenship

One thing that was clear from today's argument is that the Court will not reach the merits yet. After another argument in October, maybe. Or maybe not until the circuit courts have weighed in.

The Solicitor General mentioned today the Government's merits argument rests in large part on the claim that "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause requires that the parents of the children have a domicile within the United States. That's wrong for several reasons, but here's one that relates back to an argument that I made in some earlier posts.

The children of "gypsies" were expressly mentioned as people who would get birth citizenship under the Citizenship Clause. Traditional "gypsies" did not have a domicile. Indeed, you might say that the lack of a domicile (e.g., "wandering band of gypsies") is what defined that group of people and explains why they were persecuted for centuries. You can't reconcile that with a domicile requirement for birth citizenship.

Gerard Magliocca
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2025/05/the-governments-domicile-argument-on.html?m=1

[Dr. Ed 2]

Couldn't the caravan itself be considered a domicile?

What about long-distance truckers who literally live in the truck? Or retired folk with RVs? Where are they spending 181 days of the year?

[jb]

One thing that was clear from today's argument is that the Court will not reach the merits yet.

I'm not so sure. A lot of the justices seemed to be asking questions about whether or not they needed to at least "peek" at the merits in order to rule (and these weren't the liberals). Seemed like they were looking for an excuse to do so. Although I'd expect something more like dicta mentioning that the precedent and law is fairly clear on the topic in an effort to make it go away without having to make a substantive ruling on the merits.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The merits are pretty important for the relief question, after all any preliminary injunction requires the court to consider the “likelihood of success” on the merits. And when crafting relief, if the government’s theory is that a bunch of precedent is wrong and they’re going to just ignore it until the Supreme Court says to stop, then the preliminary relief to maintain the status quo while the ultimate issue is reached might need to be pretty broad to protect the interests of non-parties which should also be a consideration. This too is a consideration of equitable relief. If the government is signaling its intent to continue acting against non-parties in a way that is illegal and against settled expectations it would make sense to craft a remedy to prevent that.

[Zarniwoop]

That sort of completely reasonable and unsurprising logic is why this case seems such a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad vehicle for attacking national injunctions.

[Zarniwoop]

One thing that was clear from today's argument is that the Court will not reach the merits yet

Remember folks, our favorite Top-200 conspirator throws … stuff at the wall, so he can later claim to be a far-sighted genius when something he hand-wavy “predicted” kinda sort maybe happens (if you squint really hard).

“On Sunday, I predicted that the Supreme Court will avoid resolving the various nationwide injunction issues in the birthright citizenship cases. Instead, the Court would issue a merits ruling based on the Fourteenth Amendment to make the case go away.”

[not guilty]

Justice Kagan posed an interesting question to the Solicitor General about what will happen, in the absence of a nationwide injunction, if the government continues to lose in every lower federal court that considers birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Will the government decline to seek certiorari so as to avoid SCOTUS definitively addressing the merits?

[Poxigah146]

The Episcopal Church announced it wouldn't help settle Afrikaner refugees. Even if you believe their statement that Trump is prioritizing white refugees over non-white, Christians still have an obligation to assist any downtrodden. You don't punish the white refugees become some non-white refugees are being mistreated, according to them.

They're fake Christians.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Damn right!

And the two things not being said here are (a) South Africa used to EXPORT food and now South Africans are starving.

And (b), Africa is a multi-racial society, even if all the races are Black. The ANC is exclusively members of one race, so how is minority rule by a minority Black race better than minority rule by a minority White race?

I had some of the ANC in one of my grad classes 30 years ago -- not only are they Marxists, they are also every bit as racist as the White South Africans were, if not more.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed gets offended that nobody believes his stories. But if I were him, I would be more embarrassed if people believed that I was judging South African politics in 2025 involving 6.5 million people (the number of people who voted for the ANC in the last election) by my impression of a couple of grad students in 1995.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who were officials in the new government?

[Longtobefree]

https://babylonbee.com/news/episcopalians-find-strange-old-book-hidden-under-pew

[hobie]

"Christians still have an obligation to assist any downtrodden"

You sure you wanna throw me that softball so early in the day?

[ReaderY]

When rich and powerful people appropriate to themselves monies and benefits intended for genuinely downtrodden people, is their a doctrinal obligation to assist them in their theft?

[Poxigah146]

They're not rich and powerful. They're in danger of being murdered by the ANC supporters, as Dr. Ed details up above.

[hobie]

Why can't these Afrikaans go back and fix their own shithole country?

You know, this MAGA Think is kinda fun!

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

Because they're being murdered and raped by the Leftist blacks that control the country?

Just like every other formerly White-governed country in Africa?

[Poxigah146]

What if the only way to fix it was to bring back apartheid? Would you be supportive?

[hobie]

What ever keeps the freeloaders out of Murica I'm for it.

But I got news for you, sport. Half of South Africa is highly wealthy, and white run (especially the east coast).

You might feel better if you were to look at the black South Africans as analogous to Jews: just trying to reclaim their ancestral homeland from the subhuman interlopers.

[Poxigah146]

Half of highly wealthy? LOL. Tell me you've never visited without telling me that.

[hobie]

And like the Israelis, 'relocating' people from their homes is pretty kosher. So I don't know what your beef is here with South Africa

[Sarcastr0]

What if the only way to fix it was to bring back apartheid

How would we know that's the only way?
We wouldn't. And we don't.

So this just looks like white supremecy.

[Poxigah146]

The Afrikaners were not getting raped and pillaged prior to the end of apartheid, and now they're seeking refuge in the United states, because of an end to apartheid demanded by the international "community," and now you're saying they deserve their plight.

Despicable.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's sure what I said chief.

Why are you setting up a false choice between violence and bringing back apartheid?

I mean, I have a theory...

[David Nieporent]

and now they're seeking refuge in the United states,

I mean, they're not. A couple of dozen people out of millions?

[Poxigah146]

So it's okay for a race to be persecuted as long as it's not all of them?

[David Nieporent]

So it's okay for you to lie?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I argue that Apartheid still exists, just with a different group on top.

[Poxigah146]

But the whites deserve it, in South Africa and here in America. It's only a problem if whites are the oppressors.

[Frank Drackman]

Be careful what you wish for Hobie-Stank, you really want a Bizarro-Haiti?

[hobie]

Been a rough year in the oil patch, boys. Like I said last month, because of low oil prices we had to mothball most of our jack up rigs in West Africa. Now we're having to do similar in the Permian Basin.

I know you like low oil prices, but drill-baby-drill won't happen if they continue. And I think you like drill-baby-drill more, though. So get out your juvenile Biden 'I did that!' stickers and start plastering them again on the damn prices at the pump.

Because if there's one thing you hillbillies reflexively worship more than Israel...no matter what they do...its me and my oil company

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

If by "Israel" you mean God's People, the Christians, then so what?

If by "Israel" you mean the country filled with Baal worshippers, Christ-haters, Anti-White bigots, Christian child sacrificers, war mongers, society subverters and other assorted genocidal maniacs, then that group is rapidly finally noticing and shrinking in size. Dramatically. Just look at the polls.

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank, First you steal Veteran's Valor, now you're pretending to be some sort of Oil Typhoon?? Only Petroleum product you're familiar with is K-Y when (redacted, got the order from EV to put the K-Bash on the profanity/Sexual content)

Frank

[hobie]

Apart from your sexual frustrations, we need to work on your pronouns, Frankie.

[Frank Drackman]

Sex Sex Sex! Enough about Sex! I've had it up to here with Sex!
Not lately though, I'll tell you that....(HT R. Dangerfield)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I thought that K-Y was *not* petroleum based so that it would not dissolve latex.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Some context in reply to a comment is found here:

Episcopal Church refuses to resettle white Afrikaners, citing moral opposition

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/12/g-s1-65988/episcopal-church-white-afrikaners-ends-partnership-u-s-government

Helpful links include a "Letter from Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe on Episcopal Migration Ministries" and "South African Christians Condemn Trump ‘Weaponizing’ Racial Politics."

The former notes in part:

"It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years."

This is after "Since January, the previously bipartisan U.S. Refugee Admissions Program in which we participate has essentially shut down. Virtually no new refugees have arrived, hundreds of staff in resettlement agencies around the country have been laid off, and funding for resettling refugees who have already arrived has been uncertain."

After this, being required to selectively (DEI? woke?) help one group, based on allegations of mistreatment they questioned, led them to decide they had to no longer take part in the official partnership with the federal government.

The second link helps explain the "historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa" comment in the letter.

The church will continue to "will continue to support immigrants and refugees in other ways."

If "the downtrodden" among any group of refugees cannot be helped, per Jesus' words, the church would have an obligation to care for them. I think it remains to be seen if the actions here would violate that dictate.

[ReaderY]

When rich and powerful people appropriate the money and benefits intended for genuinely downtrodden people, is there a doctrinal obligation to assist them in the theft?

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

You're helping them hate wash their bigotry.

[ReaderY]

I think that Justice Jackson’s explanation of (or argument for) why the equity remedies available to federal courts cannot be completely equivalent to those available to US courts with the United States as a party deserves some discussion.

Under English law, the king was above the law and could not be subjected to equity. There could therefore be no equitable remedies against the king. Justice Jackson points out that it is therefore not surprising that the English courts of chancery never developed remedies regarding complaints the government was acting unlawfully. They were purely for disputes between private parties.

Justice Jackson’s position is that the whole concept of a suit in equity against the sovereign is a novel development for which there is no precedent in the English courts of chancery. She therefore argues that the remedies available to the English courts of chancery for disputes between pricate parties cannot be grafted wholesale to the very different issue of disputes involving a sovereign.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Has Bray written anything on this?

[Noscitur a sociis]

He’s been posting a lot on this on the Divided Arguments substack. Good stuff

[LawTalkingGuy]

Thanks. I’ll check it out.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Is this position inconsistent with her other position that, the government is like other parties? Having personal jurisdiction over the government (or the individuals exercising the office) means the court can order them: don’t do this. So to the extent that the government is just like any other party, chancery concepts designed for private parties could apply?

To me these are both good points on their own but I don’t know if they’re reconcilable?

Although I think her practical point that the governments position is “catch me if you can” was also pretty on point. And if we’re zooming out to look to the tradition of equity, it was a flexible doctrine to make rules where the common law was inadequate. The Thomas position appears to be that American equity is rigidly inflexible and there needs to be 1789 analogs for everything. Like the common law in the 1500s.

[Martinned]

Under English law, the king was above the law and could not be subjected to equity. There could therefore be no equitable remedies against the king. Justice Jackson points out that it is therefore not surprising that the English courts of chancery never developed remedies regarding complaints the government was acting unlawfully.

This is, euh, quite a summary of English law. Let's just start by observing that the King was most definitely not above the law, and leave the rest for another day.

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

[ReaderY]

This case does not refute Justice Jackson’s claim because it was decided by a court of law, not a court of equity. Do you have an on-point case from a chancery court, to the effect that the king can be sued in equity and equitable remedies are available against him?

[Dr. Ed 2]

They were the King's Courts....

[Voize of Reazon]

I would also suggest that the outcome wasn't a judgment against the King but a determination that the Courts wouldn't recognize his proclamations as having the force of law unless they were supported by action of Parliament. When James published proclamations the result was they were ignored not that he was found liable for issuing them.

[Kazinski]

I've always wondererd where the term 'sovereign immunity' came from.

[Kazinski]

You would think in the absence of remedies in the common law that would mean Congress would have to act to create the remedies they think proper, not the judges saying 'hey that power looks good to me'.

I generally disagree Trump or Biden suddenly claim a new power not granted by the constitution or Congress, but same principle applies to judges.

[Michael P]

Good news for downsized Swamp creatures: there may be an animal rescue out there somewhere for you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2025/05/16/federal-employees-pet-rescue-foster/

[ReaderY]

[John F. Carr]

In better news for illegal aliens, a magistrate judge in New Mexico threw out over 100 charges of trespass. A strip of land along the border there is part of a military base for the specific purpose of being a barrier to immigration. Off limits. The defendants crossed the border into the military base instead of at a legal crossing. The judge did not find probable cause of specific intent to trespass. Did the defendants see a no trespassing sign? Could they read it? (I originally wrote more but the comment form ate it. Read the article if you care. The judge was not pleased.)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-judge-dismisses-more-100-030800438.html

[Brett Bellmore]

" The judge did not find probable cause of specific intent to trespass."

The very fact that they avoided the legal crossing should be enough to establish specific intent to trespass, but they plausibly didn't have specific intent to trespass on a military base.

Adequate signage should resolve that.

[John F. Carr]

Crossing between inspection points is covered by 8 USC 1325(a), not trespass law. The land on the American side of the border might not be posted "no trespassing." For example, there's at least one building straddling the US-Canada border where the public is welcome on both sides. There's a street that runs along the border. Anybody with a license from the USA or Canada can drive on either side.

[John F. Carr]

Apparently the government was trying to boost the 6 month sentence for illegal entry to an 18 month sentence by stacking on trespassing charges. As long as the individual charges are punishable by no more than six months the defendants do not have the right to a jury trial. Congress could make first offense illegal entry an 18 month felony. Then defendants would get a jury trial and possibly better quality appointed counsel.

[Voize of Reazon]

This building?

[CountmontyC]

Will need the no trespassing signs to be in multiple languages or the claim will be that they didn't understand what the signs said. Might even need speakers giving the warning or the trespassers will claim to be illiterate.

[Mr. Bumble]

Skull and crossbones.

[Longtobefree]

Danger. Land mines.

(in English only)

[John F. Carr]

Danger: Land mines!
Acthung: Minen!
Mi casa es su casa!

I don't know if the government would be liable for death and injury resulting from such a trick.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not the government but the person who decided to post those signs.

[Brett Bellmore]

You just need the universal "no trespassing" sign: Barbed wire.

[David Nieporent]

That would not in fact provide notice that it was a military base.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would provide notice you were trespassing, which should be sufficient. But would mines be enough, do you think?

[apedad]

In case anyone has the time to review the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” the House Budget Committee is about to start reviewing.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BU/BU00/20250516/118284/BILLS-119pih.pdf

. . . an individual may be entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under this title (Medicaid) only if the individual is—
‘‘(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
‘‘(2) an alien who is lawfully admitted for per2 manent residence under the Immigration and Na3 tionality Act;
‘‘(3) an alien who—
‘‘(A) is a citizen or national of the Republic of Cuba
‘‘(B) is the beneficiary of an approved peti8 tion under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
‘‘(C) meets all eligibility requirements for an immigrant visa but for whom such a visa is 12 not immediately available;

Um, what's up with (3)(A)?

[hobie]

Kinda looks like a form of gerrymandering

[tylertusta]

Looks like that section (and other references to Cuba through the bill) is so the law conforms with the Cuba-US Migration Accord:

(E) is physically present in the United
States pursuant to a grant of parole in further-
ance of the commitment of the United States to
the minimum level of annual legal migration of
Cuban nationals to the United States specified
in the U.S.-Cuba Joint Communique´ on Migra-
tion, done at New York September 9, 1994, and
reaffirmed in the Cuba-United States: Joint
Statement on Normalization of Migration,
Building on the Agreement of September 9,
1994, done at New York May 2, 1995

[wnoise]

Pandering.

[hobie]

Being in an all-black hood, there's plenty of mentally ill homeless wandering around talking to themselves. Well, yesterday was a first. Guy walks by punching the air and shouting at the ground: "Tariffs are it! Tariffs are the thing!" over and over.

This wasn't lost on me. I thought to myself, 'See? Easily digestible by the mentally ill.'

[Mr. Bumble]

Good fiction needs to be somewhat believable.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Good fiction needs to be somewhat believable."

Not true at all. Good fiction only needs to be good. Believability may be a means but isn't essential.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Somewhat"

[Frank Drackman]

So now being Black is a mental illness?? I live in a mostly Asian-Hood (check out Zipcode 30097) and there's plenty of elderly Asians wandering around talking to themselves (I think mostly it's the Alzheimers) young Asians also (I think it's mostly the Cellphones)
and your story lacks credibility, sounds made up, in other words, it's Bovine Feces (See EV? "Keeping it Clean"!!)

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

If there's a playground nearby, I know a way you could score a cool $1M.

[Bob from Ohio]

"plenty of mentally ill ... wandering around talking to themselves"

Especially since you moved in!

[hobie]

From CNBC:

"Musk’s Grok AI chatbot says it ‘appears that I was instructed’ to talk about ‘white genocide’"

"Users had noticed the chatbot was generating bizarre answers about the controversial topic on Wednesday afternoon in response to unrelated queries.

CNBC was able to duplicate the artificial intelligence chatbot’s responses via multiple user accounts on X, including by asking in one prompt, “Did someone program Grok to discuss ‘white genocide’ specifically?”

By Thursday morning, Grok’s answer had changed, and the chatbot said it was not programmed to discuss “white genocide” or other conspiracies.

“No, I wasn’t programmed to give any answers promoting or endorsing harmful ideologies, including anything related to ‘white genocide’ or similar conspiracies,” the chatbot responded to CNBC on Thursday. “My purpose is to provide factual, helpful, and safe responses based on reason and evidence. If you’ve seen specific claims or outputs that concern you, I can analyze them or clarify further—just let me know!”

Musk’s xAI did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment."

[hobie]

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy today defended his statement that if you were to just exclude black women, maternal death rates in Louisiana aren't so bad.

In related news, it was discovered that if you exclude whites from America's insurrection statistics, the metric would hover at near zero

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

If you excluded black males aged 15-40 from violent crime statistics, the USA would be a paradise.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/salman-rushdie-attacker-sentenced-to-25-years/ar-AA1EUSyh

Salman Rushdie's book Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder is recommended.

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

Seeing the Democrat leaders come out against the South African refugees, some arguing that they're guilty today because of what other people before them did was really stunning.

Democrats/Jews have been making this a argument about Whites for a while now. But they never make the same argument about other races or ethnic groups. This collective, historical guilt.

What principle is it that they are using to being apply this concept only to Whites?

[John F. Carr]

New York Assembly Bill 8318 would retaliate against the Trump administration's retaliation against big law firms. Bloomberg Law reports the bill is "quickly gaining steam".

The bill applies to "legal services provided pursuant to an agreement between the law firm and the federal government under which the federal government specifies the recipient or recipients or type or types or nature of such legal services." There are two restrictions on such agreements.

1. Legal services under such agreements would not count towards the 50 hours of pro bono work required for bar admission.

2. New York law firms could not require employees to work under such agreements. This part, I think, is improper discrimination against the federal government.

https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=A08318&term=&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

[hobie]

They should just do a Texas-style SB8, where they make anything the administration does illegal and make it unchallengable in the courts. That's the democracy way, baby!

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

Texas has corruptly fallen. Did you not hear about what the Texas House did? Well, that's a stupid question. Of course you haven't. Your mindmasters haven't told you what to think about it... until they do, I'll give you the skinny:

The RINO's in the House nominated and appointed a DEMOCRAT Speaker this session. I repeat, the Republican leadership got a Democrat to be the Speaker. So a Democrat dictated the legislative priority for this session where Republicans were a majority.

So of course TX got shitty stupid bills that make kids dumber, gayer, and tranny-er.

[David Nieporent]

The RINO's in the House nominated and appointed a DEMOCRAT Speaker this session. I repeat, the Republican leadership got a Democrat to be the Speaker. So a Democrat dictated the legislative priority for this session where Republicans were a majority.

They did not, in fact, do any such thing. You lied about this before, and I pointed out it was a lie, and you just blithely repeat it.

The Speaker of the House in Texas is Dustin Burrows. Dustin Burrows is a Republican. Dustin Burrows has always been a Republican.

[Bob from Ohio]

In some FOFO news.

"Trump's sanctions on ICC prosecutor have halted tribunal's work

Nearly three months ago, U.S. President Donald Trump slapped sanctions on the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan
ByMOLLY QUELL Associated Press
May 15, 2025, 12:03 AM"

Lots of nice stuff in the article but I especially liked:

"Microsoft, for example, cancelled the Khan’s email address, forcing the prosecutor to move to Proton Mail, a Swiss email provider, ICC staffers said. His bank accounts in his home country of the United Kingdom have been blocked."

[hobie]

Kinda sounds like lawfare. I thought you hypocrites hated that stuff, Bob.

[Bob from Ohio]

We sanction terrorist organizations all the time.

[Bob from Ohio]

That would be FAFO news

[Kazinski]

Do you think they will continue the sanctions now that he has stepped aside due to sex abuse allegations?

ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, to step aside until investigation ends
International criminal court confirms move after latest news reports about details of alleged sexual misconduct
"The inquiry was announced in November after allegations emerged about his treatment of a woman who worked for him. The Guardian reported that the allegations include unwanted sexual touching and “abuse” over an extended period, as well as coercive behaviour and abuse of authority."
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/16/international-criminal-court-chief-prosecutor-karim-khan-to-step-aside-until-investigation-ends

I actually saw it alleged on X that he tried to leverage his case against Israel, by telling the victim 'If you report me for sex abuse I won't be able to proceed with the case against Netanyahu and Israel'.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you think they will continue the sanctions now that he has stepped aside "

The sanctions are against the ICC in general so as long as he is an ICC employee, I would think they would.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court appointed a lawyer to defend the Mandatory
Victim Restitution Act in case 24-482 after the Trump administration switched positions. The question presented is

Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

When defendant-petitioner committed his crime restitution orders in criminal cases expired after 20 years. The MVRA later extended the term to 20 years after release from prison. The decision below, supported by the Biden Justice Department and opposed by the Trump Justice Department, says such restitution is civil in nature and can be imposed ex post facto.