Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Martinned2]

The second Trump administration seems to be taking the notion of "flooding the zone with shit" (to borrow Steve Bannon's delightful phrase) to whole new levels. Conveniently, someone on social media listed the last 24 hours' events for us:

I said it would get worse very quickly. By tomorrow we will have completed the most dangerous & frightening 24 hours thus far of Trump 2.0. Just to name a few:

1. Defiance of a court order by sending migrants to Sudan without due process (despite clear DP decision SCOTUS) & Dist. CT. order.

2. Charging sitting congressman woman w/felony assault for attempting to observe ICE facility

3. Secy of Homeland Security reveals she has no idea what habeas corpus is; think it’s another presidential deportation power.

4. The Secy of State stands by his decision to revoke visas for students who write op-Ed’s the Admin doesn’t like. Threatens “we’ll do even more” with cold glee.

5. HHS Secy admits withholding block funding for child care & development. Yells at sitting Senator in hearing. Tells another he didn’t know funding for ALS had been cut.

6. Trump stuns Europeans on phone call in which he appears not to know peace talks are happening. Shows obsequious support for Putin.

7. IRS Director nominee is confronted with evidence of agreement to provide favors to large donors.

8. DOJ opens investigation into Trump rival running for Mayor of NY, raising possible pressure campaign.

9. ProPublica report reveals Trump Admin applying “massive pressure” on African nations to compel deals for Elon Musk.

10. DOJ opens investigation into Chicago Mayor’s office based on Mayor’s stated pride in racial diversity of workforce. Threatens investigation of pop stars support for VP Harris.

11. House holds critical vote on spending bill (Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill) designed to cut SS and Medicaid, muscle educ institutions, cut taxes for the wealthy AT 1AM, so that most won’t see it.

12. Rep. Senators & Gov’s can’t get Trump to provide FEMA funding for folks devastated by tornadoes.

13. Trump’s memecoin dinner now confirmed to include mostly non-Americans.Secy of State says it’s not his business what foreigners are on the guest list. His priority is student visa holders who write strong-eds.

14. Trump & Hegseth affirm plan to build anti-ballistic missile “Golden Dome” for $175b.

Every one of these is more important than the mental acuity of the former President. We are in trouble. Focus.

[Kazinski]

I can't wait to see what he does tomorrow.

[Frank Drackman]

Like back when Howard Stern was still funny, the people who hated him listened longer than his fans

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...He (POTUS Trump) needs to pick up the pace vis a vis budget, debt ceiling/debt, border wall/northern border security, and deportations. And BTW, eliminating income taxes for all Americans making >150K would simplify matters greatly.

POTUS Trump, Speaker Johnson and Senator Thune have ~320 business days, ~200 legislative days to get his agenda in place by 1/27 via Congress. That is not much time, legislatively. Team D has been quite effective at using the rules of each Chamber to slow things down (just remember, the shoe one day will be on the other foot; take note of the tactics, the rules have been set by Team D)

What I have come to appreciate (with some trepidation) is POTUS Trump's ability to upend the status quo, and force a paradigm shift across multiple domains: political, military, diplomatic, cultural, legal. I have never seen another POTUS who did that to the same degree. In my lifetime, Reagan comes to mind, he shifted paradigms across multiple domains. Obama, as well, but not to the same degree.

When you say, I can't wait to see what he does tomorrow, it should come with a trigger warning. 😉

[Martinned]

Yes, wiping your ass with the Constitution definitely counts as "a paradigm shift"...

[Frank Drackman]

C’mon (Man!) you know Sleepy Joe had someone wiping his Ass for him (I’m thinking Booty-Judge and Major-Dork-Ass)

[Riva]

Classy.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Team D has been quite effective at using the rules of each Chamber to slow things down "

Having a significant faction of Team R quietly helping them made it a lot easier, of course.

[shawn_dude]

Meh, these political animals are ubiquitous. Sinema? Manchin? Fetterman?

OTOH, what's the point of having a Congress elected by constituents across the entire country if they're all expected to march in lockstep with the national party priorities?

[shawn_dude]

~320 business days before they lose at least one house of Congress to get stuff done. Which is another way of admitting most voters didn't vote for what this administration wants to get done.

What does that say about MAGA?

[Commenter_XY]

Don't get complacent, it what it says.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Add to that, Secretary of State testifies before Congress, in defense of special immigration privileges for Afrikaners. Asked to explain why they are more worthy than any among a list of other groups, including Afghans, Venezuelans, and Central Americans, among others, Rubio replies happily that the nation cannot take everyone who wants to come. There are too many of those. To admit them would create a, "magnet effect."

Missed follow-up question opportunity: "How come admission of Afrikaners does not create a magnet effect for Afghans, Venezuelans, and Central Americans?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because Afrikaners are far more likely to contribute to America?

[Martinned]

How can you tell?

[Frank Drackman]

History, ever heard of Heart Transplants? (Unfortunately for you they haven’t perfected one for Brains yet)

[NvEric]

Good one Frank

[David Nieporent]

Because Afrikaners are far more likely to contribute to America?

Because they're white? Or because they're white?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because of what they had contributed to South Africa before it was stolen from them. ZA used to export food, now it is starving. ZA used to have plenty of water to drink, now they are worried about running out.

There is clear reason to believe that they are more likely to be productive than, say, uneducated layabouts.

But so what if they are White. Is it wrong for a White country to give preference to people like themselves? Japan does...

[bernard11]

The US is not, as you put it, a "White country."

[David Nieporent]

Neither's Japan, for that matter.

[Frank Drackman]

Parts of it certainly are

[Riva]

Well, they're at least not enemy terrorist gangbangers, the democrats' preferred class of immigrants.

[Frank Drackman]

I read Arthur Ashe's "Portrait in Motion" as a kid, not quite up there with Jim Bouton's "Ball Four", but loved how he was a Social "Liberal" but talked about all the Tennis Groupies he (redacted), and joked about how when he played in the South African Open (where he lost in the singles final to Jimmy Connors, but won the Doubles ) he'd see all the American Liberal Tourists running around taking photos of the "Whites Only" signs. and that people must think all they have in South Africa is Toilets.
Oh, and he was amazed that "Soweto" was just short for "Southwest Township" and not some native Swahili word, and that he was the only one there with an "Afro"
He also said some of the least race-ist players were the South Africans. and the part where Ilie Nastase and Jimmy Connors show up in Blackface???
Poor Arthur couldn't catch a break, wore contacts because the Lasik wasn't invented yet, caught the HIV-ie during Bypass Surgery, for his Coronary Artery Disease that today would be treated with Lipitor and a PTCA.
His Wimbledon upset of Jimmy Connors still a great watch (its on Youtube) I think Jimbo's still running after that last volley

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was taught that he was gay and that's how he got AIDS.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm not surprised, seeing as how you get everything completely wrong, read his book, he was about as "Gay" as Bill Clinton or Nikki Sixx(Google it). Arthur had 2 Bypass Surgeries (with the standard transfusions of packed cells, platelets, and plasma) in 1979 and 1983 before anyone even what HIV was.
Now don't you feel stupid? probably not.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

More mad -- I was lied to.

Of course I have no recollection of him, he retired when I was in high school and I never was a big sports fan -- other than the Red Sox.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who "taught" you he was gay?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. The left is really upset that a few African Americans are coming to the country.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They are Africans, not "African Americans".

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

They're African Americans now!

[Stephen Lathrop]

By analogy with, "African Americans," they are, "European Africans."

[Brett Bellmore]

While in Africa, sure.

Once they're here, they'd be "African Americans".

[NvEric]

The Left sure likes to "divide people" into groups. However, European African Americans is better.

[not guilty]

I once did an appeal of a rape conviction involving DNA evidence. The Defendant-Appellant was black. The serologist testified at trial as to what percentage of African-American men have a DNA profile comparable to that analyzed from fluid taken from the victim.

I pointed out in my brief that the witness did not identify what DNA marker identifies citizenship.

[not guilty]

I also represented a Death Row inmate, who had been convicted of murder, rape and armed robbery, in a post-conviction proceeding. The trial had been conducted in 1983, before DNA analysis was available. The forensic serologist testified that the semen had been deposited by a Type O secretor (the Defendant's blood type), and that 35% of the male population is Type O secretors.

The defense lawyer (who was conducting his first criminal jury trial) asked the witness, "How do you know that that was male semen?"

[Michael P]

They seem really afraid of getting another Elon Musk and a future Pay Pal, Tesla and SpaceX.

[Frank Drackman]

That's not a joke, they are.

[Sarcastr0]

Talented people appear in every country.

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

Of course, it's just the per capita rates that are drastically different.

[Krayt]

Talented people shine better in free countries than dictstorships and massively corrupt kleptocracies.

[tylertusta]

If the people from ZA had illegally entered the USA then the left would have already lined up lawyers for them because they have contempt for our immigration laws.

But because Trump is involved the left has lost their minds again. I bet that the next Democratic President is going to deport them just because Trump let them in.

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome proving by counterfactual. Unassailable!

[tylertusta]

Your superpower is pretending that opinion and speculation is something else.

[Sarcastr0]

Opinion without argument or factual predicate is just advertising your priors.

[tylertusta]

Yes, the irony of your statement did not escape me either.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never underestimate the power of Il Douche.

[tylertusta]

I make a point to never underestimate someone's superpowers more than once.

[Speaking for normal people]

But Stephen you NEVER say they don't have the right, you just go off on 'what about everybody else'
I know that randomly machine gunning kids is wrong but I am in the dark about doing that to Hamas. Does that mean it's okay to kill the kids. That is your argument

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2, before someone else steps in to do it in a nasty way, are you aware of the many-decades-past joke about The Lone Ranger and Tonto?:

Hostile Indians have them in desperate straits. The Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says, "We may be out of luck this time, Tonto."

Tonto replies, "What do you mean, 'We,' white man?

[Frank Drackman]

Bill Cosby had some great “Lone Ranger/Tonto” bits

[Frank Drackman]

“The Lone Ranger would always have Tonto go into town to get Information, and the bad guys would beat the snot out of him! “Nice to have you in town Tonto! (Punching noises) “ and I’d always say “Tonto, don’t go into town! The bad guys are gonna beat you up again!”
Just once I’d like to see,
“Tonto?”
“Yes Kemosabe?”
“I need you to go into town to get information”
“You go to hell Kemosabe, the “Information” is “Tonto not go into town”!

[Brett Bellmore]

"2. Charging sitting congressman woman w/felony assault for attempting to observe ICE facility"

Pretty sure she got charged with felony assault for assaulting somebody. Bet the indictment doesn't say anything about "observing" being the basis of the charge.

Now, a jury might find her innocent, but that's another matter.

[Kazinski]

That didn't look like observing in the video I saw.

[Mr. Bumble]

How will McIver get out of this jam?
Oh wait, wrong McIver.

[tylertusta]

It was an assaulty but mostly peaceful observation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Belllmore, stop salivating. She hasn't even been indicted yet.

[Frank Drackman]

they're busy coming up with 34 felony charges

[Brett Bellmore]

Who's salivating? I was just correcting the claim. Maybe she's innocent, the badge cam footage I saw wasn't great, but it wasn't damning, either.

But I'm somewhat tired of this common left-wing rhetorical trope. Somebody advocates X. You think it will have consequence Y. So you say that they advocate Y.

Somebody advocates meritocracy, say. You think this will result in blacks being unrepresented in a profession. So you say, "They advocate that blacks be barred from this profession!"

[David Nieporent]

Alanis Morisette just offed herself, because irony is now officially, permanently, dead. Brett Bellmore, the Emperor of If It Happened Then This Proves That You Wanted It To Happen *cough*Biden*immigration*cough* is now arguing that consequences shouldn’t be attributed to advocates.

[Speaking for normal people]

about the Blacks, that always gets down to government definition of who is Black on the scale from pure to whatever.
You abuse words too much

[Sarcastr0]

I think this is more partisan persecution than actual punishment for crimeing.

But then I realize that's the same telepathic vibes thing that has you lot all yelling about lawfare, so I'll let the chips fall where they may.

Less for the truth and more for your own vibes check, I do wonder what you think about the counterfactual of a different administration, whether there would be charges.

[Commenter_XY]

The bodycam footage doesn't lie.

Is the Congresswoman guilty of more than an extreme potty mouth? That is the question. Alina Habba says 'Yup". Her opinion actually matters, b/c it comes with federal charges that Congresswoman Potty Mouth will have to spend time and money upon. Sounds like a lengthy process, too. One sympathizes. or maybe not.

Let a People's Republic of NJ jury decide. 🙂

[shawn_dude]

The bodycam footage shows other people behind her pushing into each other and driving her forward. Her arm against the shoulder of the officer in front of her looks to be intended to keep them separated. If this administration wasn't using the DOJ, IRS, and every other department to "investigate" it's enemies list, I'd take these allegations more seriously. Note that the charges were filed outside of the normal DOJ process.

[Commenter_XY]

The jury can sort it out.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that, based on the badge cam footage, they've got her dead to rights on battery. The threshold for THAT is absurdly low. Assault? I'm not so sure.

But the notion that there's NO legal basis for the charge is absurd.

I think what they're doing here is trying to push back the notion that members of Congress are somehow immune to normal law, can do without consequence the sorts of things that would routinely land everybody else in jail.

And, of course, they're doing this in a political context, it's not like they're hunting for similarly situated Republicans to go after. OTOH, my perception is that there aren't actually a lot of similarly situated Republicans available to go after. This sort of protest theater isn't popular in Republican circles. Not seeing a lot of Republicans pulling fire alarms to disrupt votes, either...

Maybe that perception is wrong, and the Newsom administration will be jailing Republican members of Congress by the score in 2029. We'll see. But I do favor relieving members of Congress of the notion that they're immune from generally applicable law. They have a certain amount of immunity in that regard, but it is very limited indeed, and this was well outside its bounds.

[Sarcastr0]

But the notion that there's NO legal basis for the charge is absurd.

No one said this.

You're jumping between 'this is a nonpartisan accountability project' and 'this will only happen to Democrats.'

You're working hard to hide your saliva, but you are indeed salivating.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But the notion that there's NO legal basis for the charge is absurd.

On the basis of watching extended video showing the entire incident, not badge cam footage, I do not think there is any reasonable basis to suppose the Congresswoman can be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Of anything.

[Poxigah146]

There was no basis to suppose many of the 1/6 defendants who didn't even enter the building could have been convicted of anything, but with a corrupt judge, corrupt AUSAs, and juries with 12 Democrats on it, anything is possible.

[Krayt]

Odd how the other side will joyously latch on to something to hurt someone for political reasons, feigning concern for rule of law when that has nothing to do with their motivation.

[not guilty]

Brett, Rep. McIver has not been indicted. She is charged by criminal complaint. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.569115/gov.uscourts.njd.569115.1.0.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

Charging sitting congressman woman w/felony assault for attempting to observe ICE facility

As compared to Jan 6th?
And it's "disgraced former Governor"....

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Charging sitting congressman woman w/felony assault for attempting to observe ICE facility..."

Why do so many people on the left want people like me to be able to "both sides" the mendacity issue?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nobody doubts your capacity to do that without help, reflection, or evidence.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure, but if I did that and people like MartinNed didn't lie about why the Congresswoman was charged, I'd be wrong.

[shawn_dude]

There's "why" as in the government motivation and "why" as in the flimsy legal basis they're using. If they can kill habeas corpus, though, they won't even need a pretext; they can just bag her head and toss her into a random van secret police style.

[Speaking for normal people]

Winston Churchill: "This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read".

[Poxigah146]

I personally love it. He's doing exactly what Obama and Biden did. It's only weird to you because Republicans have traditionally been cowards unwilling to fight.

[Martinned]

He's doing exactly what Obama and Biden did.

Assuming you really believe this and that you're not just trolling, I feel sorry for you and your country. Who hurt you?

[Speaking for normal people]

Translation: I Poxigah146 am superior to huge swaths of people and Presidents. NO, you are a nobody with a big mouth
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/76/eb/40/76eb40320a0dd810d40940750d4cd629.jpg

[Riva]

First, Bannon never said “flood the zone with shit” He has often said “flood the zone.“ Leftist commentators added “shit” Leftists are not honest, they make things up. All the time. It’s what they do.

Second, there is nothing wrong with “flooding the zone”. It’s actually a good tactic often used successfully, as President Trump has done. Which is your real complaint.

Third, your commentary is essentially more projection, another hallmark of the left. It anything could be called “flooding the zone with shit” it’s the conduct of the Biden regime (not Biden, but whoever was in charge) From prosecutorial abuses, to the flurry of blanket pardons, to the (at the very least) irresponsible spending spree at the end of his term (and that’s scratching the surface).

[Poxigah146]

Correct. Biden was never a radical leftist. He clearly was installed so that anti-American progressives could run the show without anything getting in the way.

[Speaking for normal people]

He has been around 50 years !!! I followed about 40 , yes he was a radical leftist. Medal of Freedom to a mega-abortionist
Putting these persons in https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/sam-brinton-comp.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1200 very influential posts

[not guilty]

"First, Bannon never said “flood the zone with shit” He has often said “flood the zone.“ Leftist commentators added “shit” Leftists are not honest, they make things up. All the time. It’s what they do."

You lie, Riva. From Michael Lewis's February 9, 2018 account of watching the State of the Union with Steve Bannon.:

He leaves the room for several minutes, perhaps to compose himself. When he returns he takes real notice of the remarkable scene that is unfolding. At even the most anodyne applause lines the Democrats remain seated. Bannon seems to view the Democrats less as the opposition party than figures of fun. “The Democrats don’t matter,” he had said to me over our lunch. “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” But he stares at the seated Democrats with genuine wonder. “Look at this,” he says. “Even Reagan -- I’ve never seen a State of the Union like this.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-09/has-anyone-seen-the-president

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/media/steve-bannon-reliable-sources/index.html

[Riva]

“6. Trump stuns Europeans on phone call in which he appears not to know peace talks are happening. Shows obsequious support for Putin.“

Yeah, about as believable as a “dossier” written by a UK spy hired to work for a political campaign.

[John F. Carr]

In even weirder Trump-related news, The Guardian came dangerously close to warming up to Trump as Trump backs away from unconditional support for Israel.

What Donald Trump did this week should terrify Benjamin Netanyahu.

Reminds me of Churchill's "end of the beginning" speech. The war was not close to over in 1942. Britons could see change on the way. The war in Gaza is not close to over, and conditions are not improving, but there's a ray of hope on the horizon.

[Martinned]

Trump believes whatever the last person he talked to believed and/or what whoever paid him believes, so it makes sense that he's going to be following the Qatari/Saudi line, at least until the pro-Israel faction in Washington manage to talk to him.

But none of this matters in the long run, because in the long run you can't trust Trump to consistently do anything.

[Speaking for normal people]

well, Martin your hatred of Trump reminds me of another piece of wisdom from that same source

Don't ask a woman for advice about a rival of hers,
a coward about war,
a merchant about a bargain,
a buyer about selling,
a stingy person about gratitude,
a cruel person about kindness,
a lazy person about work,
a casual worker about finishing a job,
a lazy slave about a difficult task.
Pay no attention to any advice they may give.

[Riva]

With respect to leftist projection (at the heart of pretty much all their nonsense), I should add that, if anyone is “flooding the zine with shit,” it’s you with your opening comment.

[hobie]

I thought the hayseeds didn't like lying, familial corruption, lawfare and preferential racial practices. I guess that was soooo 2024

[Bob from Ohio]

2. Charging sitting congressman woman w/felony assault for attempting to observe ICE facility

8. DOJ opens investigation into Trump rival running for Mayor of NY, raising possible pressure campaign.

Oh, is investigating or charging leaders of the opposing party bad now?

[CountmontyC]

What was that phrase that they used repeatedly?

I believe that it was

NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!

[Speaking for normal people]

that is why opposing party does the evil things it does, because there is always the lie/excuse "they are doing this because we are Democrats" Ask Kamala how well that works. or better yet , Hillary. She threw a Dan Marino/ Aaron Rodgers election to Trump with her Deplorables speech. I remember thinking "She is promising that if elected she will take me to be an enemy" So I voted for Trump

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports:

A federal judge in Boston said on Wednesday that the Trump administration had violated an order he issued last month barring officials from deporting people to countries not their own without first giving them an opportunity to object to their removal.

The finding by the judge, Brian E. Murphy, was one of the strongest judicial rebukes the administration has faced so far in a series of contentious cases arising from its sprawling deportation agenda. It was not immediately clear what punishment, if any, Judge Murphy intended to mete out against the administration or those who took part in the operation, but he asked for a list of names so he can notify them that they might all face criminal contempt penalties.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/21/us/trump-news?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250521&instance_id=154984&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=198395&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f#south-sudan-deportation

President Trump can frustrate criminal contempt prosecutions by pardoning the offenders, but if there were lawyers involved in disobeying or assisting others in disobeying the court's order, the District Court can refer them to disciplinary authorities in the states where they are licensed.

[A Japanese Student]

A minor political party in Japan, Sanseito, posted a draft constitutional amendment. Here's a translation (by me), if you are interested: https://hackmd.io/@a-japanese-student/S1P28stZll

Definitely not the kind of constitution a modern nation would have. To start, the entire bill of rights have been stripped off and replaced with conservative agenda.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Showing Bellmore's conservative influence in Japan?

[Martinned]

Possibly, but people in other countries are quite capable of being conservative without help from the US.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not only that, but people in other countries are undoubtedly capable to use their own constitutions to decree policy outcomes. But that has not until recently been the tradition of American constitutionalism, so the change is worth noting.

[Speaking for normal people]

Provably wrong
The Declaration of Independence: A Global History Paperback – , 2008
by David Armitage
He uses over one hundred declarations of independence written since 1776 to show the influence and role the U.S. Declaration has played in creating a world of states out of a world of empires.

As Lincoln said
Abraham Lincoln meditated on the relation between the Union and the Constitution and the Declaration. He had in mind a beautiful passage from Proverbs (25:11)–“a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver”–as he wrote a private note to himself sometime after his election as president in November 1860, and before his inauguration in March 1861. He reflected on the blessings enjoyed by the United States–our “free government” and “great prosperity.” “All this,” he writes, “is not the result of accident.”

It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all”–the principle that clears the path for all–gives hope to all–and, by consequence, enterprize, and industry to all.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure why you'd think I would support any even vaguely analogous amendment here. I'm actually on record complaining that we're already effectively violating the titles of nobility clause by the way we treat office holders, especially the President.

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

>Art. 7. FAMILIES.
(1) Families are the foundations of society, and shall endeavor to help each other with compassion.
(2) Children are the treasures of the State. Parents shall be responsible for the children's growth and education, and the State shall supplement such responsibilities.
(3) Marriage shall be based on the union between a man and a woman, and the husband and wife shall share the same surname.
(4) Households, local communities, and schools shall cooperate with each other and help cultivate the healthy mind of the people.

----

That needs to be an amendment here.

[Speaking for normal people]

But it is in UN DEclaration on Human RIghts.

Article 16
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

Article 25
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

WHo fights these things? Liberals and Libertarians and many Democrats. Why? They fear greatly that they will be supporting
that other Article
Article 18, guarantees freedom of religion or belief. This right includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief, and to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance, both alone and in community with others, in public or private.

HAVE WATCHED FOR YEARS. You even hear lip service about Freedom of Religion and then observe that same official blocking it

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Some conservatives might want to amend the U.S. Constitution and make Trump a sort of "emperor" of the U.S., if one with more religious and secular powers.

[Speaking for normal people]

But first Joe Nero has to dragoon millions into accepting the label that Joe Nero says fits them. Then he has to punish them for wanting to use the word 'emperor' and not admitting it.

Joe Nero thought the next Lincoln was Michael Dukakis

https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/138b7b4/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-origin-images.politico.com%2F2013%2F11%2F01%2Fdukakis_tank_2_c.jpg

[Bwaaah]

Good work there. Thanks for that. It reminds me that in every constitution, you are stuck with what it says, and you are stuck with what it doesn't say. (Although the amendment by simple majority makes it easier both to mitigate and exacerbate those problems.)

[Speaking for normal people]

NO, as Lincoln said you are stuck with the Principles that animate it. A very different thing.
No change or interpretation can change
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL
ALL HAVE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS FROM THEIR CREATOR
GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO PROTECT THOSE RIGHTS

[Stephen Lathrop]

Note to Nieporent: Remember a few days ago, when I included Noem among a list of especially-unqualified cabinet picks? You assured me she was at least okay, given the generally low standard for lesser cabinet posts. Well, you got the generally low standard part right.

[Speaking for normal people]

S, you remind me of people I meet in academe, they take a fine person and then say 'But actually their IQ is ___' or "but they don't have a PhD"
If you can't see when you look, it is YOU

[SRG2]

Your point would be better made had it not been for Noem's massively ignorant comment yesterday.

"Habeas corpus is the president's right to deport people"

How is this not stupid?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's actually brilliant, and along the lines of my "nuke Gaza."

I don't want to see clouds of radiation drifting around the planet, I've already lost enough family & friends to cancer. But I'm tired of the incremental attack on my position, I consider Israel right, Hamas wrong, and really don't much care what Israel does.

Saying that "Habeas corpus is the president's right to deport people" ends a conversation that she doesn't want to have. Tactically, it's brilliant.

[Martinned]

Yes, what better tactics than tactics that make everyone, including your own allies, think you're a moron who shouldn't be in charge of the place setting at the White House thanksgiving turkey pardoning, never mind a government department?

[SRG2]

Perhaps the more she presents as a moron, the more Dr Ed can empathise with her.

[Speaking for normal people]

Martin, you have established your credentials as an expert on being a moron. Now what we need are your credentials to know what our alllies think.

[Speaking for normal people]

I know what she meant and you do too. It's like when you argue with your spouse, You are mad so everythng they say you put the worst on it

Depends whether you go by one statement or by history

Is this man a fool by your standards
Biden Tells Story About "Big Mama" And Driving 18-Wheeler, But Biden Has Never Driven An 18-Wheeler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P66vYVPx6lU

she obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in political science from South Dakota State University in 2012 ] while serving as a U.S. representative. The Washington Post dubbed her Capitol Hill's "most powerful intern" for receiving college intern credits from her position as a member of Congress.

I once was with a bunch of grad students and introduced my future spouse by the wrong name !!!

[SRG2]

Most amusing attempt at defending the indefensible.

[bernard11]

Well, most pathetic attempt, anyway.

I know what she meant. She meant what she said, that Habeas Corpus is the President's power to deport people.

It's actually brilliant,

I'm not sure Noem could beat Mr. Coffee in an IQ contest.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 6 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Note to Nieporent: Remember a few days ago, when I included Noem among a list of especially-unqualified cabinet picks?

As if any of Biden's cabinet picks were qualified.
Active in corruption would be a more accurate description, not invoking the 25th inspite of the clear signs.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Whatabout

[Joe_dallas]

Your whatabout response is lame defense of your hypocricy and Double standard. You claim a trump cabinet member is unqualified, yet you never complained about the incompetence of any of the biden cabinet officials.

[Stephen Lathrop]

More poppycock. I complained about the entire D hierarchy, from top-to-bottom, and side-to-side.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 44 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"More poppycock. I complained about the entire D hierarchy, from top-to-bottom, and side-to-side"

When?

[Speaking for normal people]

So true... that incompetent pervert Buttigieg said it would take months to restore that Carolina highway

96% of Roads Damaged from Hurricane Helene have been Reopened -- NOT UNDER TRUMP HE GETS IT DONE

[David Nieporent]

Um, it's been months.

[hobie]

Her unenumerated job is to provide animal carcasses for Kennedy to play with...end of

[Kazinski]

Its an ongoing theme in the comments here to cast any conservative media as inherently unreliable.

So I thought I would point out what a a discredited MSM.anchor says about conservative media. CNN Anchor Jake Tapper:

"Alex and I are here to say that conservative media was right and conservative media was correct, and that there should be a lot of soul searching, not just among me, but among the legacy media to begin with, all of us, for how this was covered or not covered sufficiently 100%. I mean I'm not here to defend coverage that I've already acknowledged. I wish I could do differently."

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2025/05/20/tapper-conservative-media-was-right-n3802973

Its been said many times if you want an aggressive press that will investigate government and hold it to account then Vote Republican.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Its been said many times if you want an aggressive press that will investigate government and hold it to account then Vote Republican.

Kazinski — I did not know that had been said many times. I wonder why so many would be so pig-ignorant about what it means to, "hold it to account?" But that may just be me being uncharitable, because I think when you said, "Republicans," you meant, "MAGA."

[Kazinski]

Well actually Lathrop that phrase dates back at least 40 years as I remember it.

So no, it doesn't just refer to MAGA.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, of course it does not refer to MAGA, at all. That was my point. Republican legacy media featured at least some outlets capable to hold government to account, just as Democratic legacy media did, and independent legacy media did. By contrast, MAGA media has proved incapable to hold even its own operations to account.

Your own feckless commentary is evidence of that. Want to improve? Stop relying on MAGA media. Use any of the other kinds instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

The point is that if you expect the media to hold the government to account regardless of which party is in power, you need a media that is representative of the full political spectrum, not wildly skewed to one end of it, because left, right, whatever, people are not inclined to hold to account their ideological allies. So a monoculture media is going to be a stopped clock, always defending it's allies and attacking its enemies, regardless of merit or who is in power at the time.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You write in ignorance. You sound like someone who supposes people do their own research on the internet.

Which is to say, someone who does not know what journalistic research is, who does it, or how journalistic practitioners apply their time. You also seem not to understand what kinds of internet contents exist, or where various kinds of internet contents come from.

Into that void of experience you pour suppositions, apparently based on bad practices you might choose if left at liberty to do anything at all—something which does not happen much in real-world media practice. You apparently do not understand there is little reason to suppose, "people . . . not inclined to hold to account their ideological allies," will prosper in media, except in the worst of the media, and then not for long. Neither the Wall Street Journal, nor the NYT, has ever found much journalistic use for the kinds of ideologically deranged suckers who rotate through Fox News and the New York Post.

[Brett Bellmore]

I write as somebody who used to read both liberal and conservative newspapers, at a time when there still were both sorts. I did this because BOTH sorts would routinely fail to cover stories that made their side look bad. BOTH of them, it was not a sin limited to one side. Reading both sorts of papers allowed me to fill in from one the omissions from the other.

This was in Michigan, before the JOA. After the JOA, the Detroit News and the Free Press had, for a little while longer, distinct editorial pages and cartoons, but the news coverage was identical between them. Ironically, given the News' Pulitzer, and the fact that the "Freep" failing was the basis for the JOA, it was the Free Press that took over news gathering operations, and the successful Detroit News that was reduced to just an editorial page.

From their origins in political broadsheets that included local news in order to gain readership, newspapers in America have always been politically slanted. The strange development in the modern era is almost all of them having the SAME slant. I believe this has contributed to the decline of the industry: It never helps an industry to turn its back on half the market.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's worse than this -- newspapers always were slanted, but they still reported the facts (albeit from their perspective). The Christian News Service (CNS) unapologetically does that, and the Christian Science Monitor used to.

Huntley/Brinkley had a different perspective from Walter Cronkite -- but both more or less covered the same things.

Now they invent facts while ignoring others. That IS different...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Tell you what Bellmore. You have time on your hands. Pick a left-wing conspiracy out of your grab bag, and spend whatever time it takes on the telephone, and in face-to-face interviews, proving it. When you have the proof, write it up, showing your work, so everyone who reads the story understands how you researched the story, knows the legitimacy of your sources and methods, and could at least in principle do as you had done.

Then feel free to short-circuit the rest of the process—ignore the whole audience curation, ad selling, make a profit part of the business—and publish your story here, just to prove you can research and write a story sufficiently salient to command readership.

You have never done anything like that in your life. If you could do it for a year successfully, that would qualify you as a cub reporter.

Stop telling me how journalism works.

[Armchair]

"Republican legacy media"

There is no Republican "legacy media".

[Joe_dallas]

SL - you need to get a grip on reality

The legacy media were active participants in covering up Biden's lack of mental capacity.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Whatabout

[Joe_dallas]

That is not a whatabout.
The legacy media showed their participation in the corruption. Everyone in the media knew biden was mentally incapacitated for most of his presidency. I suspect you and most every leftist commentatory posting here was also aware and chose to pretend otherwise.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What to make of a comment so self-refuting? Nobody could know what you assert, about, "everyone in the media."

Permit me a presumption. I presume you use right-wing media which wanted Biden judged incompetent, so they called him that, for years. Foolishly assuming what you wanted to believe was an open secret, you deduced that legacy media did not say the same, because they did know, but were covering it up.

That is how things go among folks who think they do their own research on the internet.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - are that seriously detached from reality.

Biden was showing serious mental cognitive decline that was evident during the summer of 2020.

[Commenter_XY]

Dude, you're 79. You don't remember hearing the phrase during President Reagan's tenure? You were 39. It wasn't that long ago.

[Martinned]

Its been said many times if you want an aggressive press that will investigate government and hold it to account then Vote Republican.

So who do I vote for if I want a President who will only allow people into the White House if they ask him questions like "Why are you so handsome?"

[Brett Bellmore]

Sorry, Obama has already had his two terms.

[Martinned]

That's just sad.

[Michael P]

Sad how? The thrill the press corps gets upon seeing the pants-leg crease of the "African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" is well documented.

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

They had children in schools singing songs about Obama.

Remember that? The creepy Obama kids?

[Speaking for normal people]

I remember him blocking public school reform but sending two girls to Sidwell
The Obamas' annual tuition at Sidwell Friends School was around $35,000 per child. This is based on information from The Washington Post

My daughter went to DC public schools, Pure expensive sht
In Fiscal Year 2023, the District of Columbia (DC) spent approximately $25,000 per student on public education. This figure is based on data from DCPS (District of Columbia Public Schools).

[Frank Drackman]

That's a Storybook! (man!)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Its an ongoing theme in the comments here to cast any conservative media as inherently unreliable."

That is false; conservative media is exceptionally reliable.

Just not to convey the truth...

This story is a great example: Conservative media uniformly insisted that Joe Biden did not decline at all during his presidency. They said he was already "senile" in 2020.

[Michael P]

I don't remember seeing any such insistence. There are degrees of senility, especially if we consider the medical diagnosis of dementia specifically.

[tylertusta]

This. Sometimes dementia is a long, slow decline. Other times it's fairly quick like in Alzheimer's. My father in law is currently going through the former. He has his good days and his bad days.

Biden had worrying signs of his mental issues back in 2020 and those issues were only going to get worse.

The travesty we face as a nation is that we had a press who pretended that Biden was fit as a fiddle for the most important job on the planet.

Is that seriously the best person who could have taken on Trump in 2020? Sad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I recall a friend of my mother's, went from independent living while helping run a greenhouse company, to dying in hospice with dementia, in under a year. First sign was her getting lost driving home from our place; There were like a total of three turns on the route... Man, that went fast.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't remember seeing any such insistence.

Really? No one calling Biden a vegetable? No one from 2020 on talking about the puppets behind the throne (favorites were Obama and Hillary, because right wing hate-ons last for a long time)>

You're either lying or have incredible motivated-forgetting skills.

[Michael P]

Since you can't read, let me quote specifically what I think was invented:

Conservative media uniformly insisted that Joe Biden did not decline at all during his presidency.

Observing signs of senility/dementia before and throughout his presidency is not the same as insisting that there was no decline, especially when signs were so frequent at the end.

[Sarcastr0]

You cut off the next sentence which describe the right wing push perfectly.

The right pegs the needle on everything they can; this was no different.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Really? No one calling Biden a vegetable? No one from 2020 on talking about the puppets behind the throne."

Gaslight0 - No one was talking about because the media were active participants in covering it up along with highly partisan commentators such as yourself pushing the delusion "sharp as a tack"

[Kazinski]

So you are saying that's not true he wasn't competent and someone else was making the decisions?

I think the puppetmasters were on his Whitehouse staff.

And I, at least, was clear saying he was "too old".

[Speaking for normal people]

Okay, MIchael, this isn't a little-finger up social party with fancy drinks. Dementia in a President is a special case

[Sarcastr0]

I think the key to critical reading of media is don't trust just one story for anything. There's always a perspective being left out.

And if you don't see the story elsewhere, that's a flag.
And if it's too good to be true, that's a flag.
And if your source is a 12 second clip on twitter, also a flag.
And if your source is opinion and you're offering it as fact, that's a flag.

In general, most of this is helped by just waiting a tick and not hurrying to slam in your single source clickbait.

None of that is partisan, all of it is good advice.

[Speaking for normal people]

NO, that is top-to-bottom wrong for 3 reasons at least
1) Most bad reporting is not reporting. Where are the stories about the taking of innocent life? they are never stories.
2) Perspective is actually first principles (see point 1) . And you are unaware that "Surveys show that only around 1 in 3 Americans can pass a simplified version of the civics portion of the US citizenship test. " You will say that has to be wrong. SHOW US
3) As with Shakespeare, Bible, Plato etc What is being left out is often the very point. All history is taking a view to things. You need FIRST to find a perspective if the matter is impoortant. Why do I need to listen to Steven Pinker --- I have Latin, Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, Aramaic and know what a load of shit this is from SP
Modern biblical scholars have established that the bible is a wiki. It was compiled over half a millennium from writers with different styles, dialects, character names, and conceptions of God and was subjected to haphazard editing that left it with many contradictions, duplications and non-sequiturs.

Steven Pinker

You have 1 semi-point: Maybe I should check back every 5 years to see if SP, or Kamala, or Biden has improved

[Brett Bellmore]

"1) Most bad reporting is not reporting. Where are the stories about the taking of innocent life? they are never stories."

This is a critical point: 90% of media bias is in the form of omission. As David Burge famously said, “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.”

[Bob from Ohio]

"90% of media bias is in the form of omission. "

GOP misdeeds get 10 minutes on the nightly broadcast news, front page on the NYT and several hours of prime time cable coverage. For weeks.

Dem misdeeds get a couple of web only articles and 3 minutes at 3 am. For a day or two.

[Magister]

Oh, like how Benghazi disappeared from the news within a couple of days, and it didn't even involve any Democratic misdeeds.

[Armchair]

Seems that's just a way to reinforce your own prejudices and avoid information that you don't like.

[Sarcastr0]

None of this is viewpoint-specific. It applies to stories in the New York Times as much as JustTheNews.

And 'if it's too good to be true' is going directly against reinforcing one's prejudices, no matter who you are.

[Speaking for normal people]

actually it is mainly false on the face of it
SO for example,

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis
May 2019Journal of Research in Reading 42(2):288-324

Digital reading might be adversely affecting kids’ reading comprehension skills, a recently published meta-analysis finds. Digital reading does improve comprehension skills, but the beneficial effect is between six and seven times smaller than that of print reading

SIX OR SEVEN TIMES SMALLER --- and poster never saw this !!!
I write them off on that basis alone -- -what the hell good is critical reading of what has six or seven times smaller beneficial effect !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[grb]

Armchair : "Seems that's just a way to reinforce your own prejudices and avoid information that you don't like."

Amazing. Sarcastr0 posts a simple set of practices to help people check and confirm their media sources. It's entirely nonpartisan and would have saved me from posting wrong points several times when I've been careless.

And - of course! - the right-wingers object. Having the worse liar in the history of U.S. politics as their cult god & being addicted to lies, this practical advice is very impractical to them. They want their fantasy facts. They want their fantasy issues. They treasure their fantasy sources. If recourse to those were denied them, they'd probably be as sallow, wild-eyed, and sweaty as an crackhead denied a fix.

(And where would all Brett's new conspiracies come from?)

[Kazinski]

"Amazing. Sarcastr0 posts a simple set of practices to help people" avoid finding out important news stories.

I will tell you want I want in a news source. I want them reporting things nobody else is reporting, not things everyone else has decided are harmless.

When the WSJ reported this weeks before the debate, they were the only ones reporting it, and

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/joe-biden-age-election-2024-8ee15246

Nobody else was reporting it, and this is the reaction they got from other outlets:
CNN

The Wall Street Journal’s story about Biden’s mental acuity suffers from glaring problems

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/06/media/wall-street-journal-biden-mental-acuity

Yeah, that same CNN Jake Tapper reports for.

"Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving."
David Burge on X
6:57 AM · May 9, 2013

[Speaking for normal people]

"Seems" --- there you go again

[Commenter_XY]

Where does....How is their actual track record versus reality.....fit into your Bayesian decision making model?

[Kazinski]

Oh yeah, we know now because it was only the NYPost that reported on the Hunter Laptop story that there was nothing to it.

And we know now because only the Tennessee Star was reporting on Albrego Garcia's human trafficking stop that that was a fabrication too.

But that's just two "anecdotes".

[Sarcastr0]

it was only the NYPost that reported on the Hunter Laptop story

This is wrong.

the Tennessee Star
Is literally fake news. Propaganda pretending to do reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-tennessee-star/

The larger point is, you lose nothing from waiting a moment to see if other places pick it up.
And you gain not making a fool of yourself by posting bullshit.

With your media choices, and insisting single sources are the way to go, it's almost like you want to be fooled.

[Kazinski]

That's funny, your media bias fact check doesn't cite any erroneous reporting, but they do say:

"In review, The Tennessee Star presents news with a conservative bias through story selection that usually favors the right. All articles are properly sourced and generally use credible mainstream sources. "

Except of course when they do original reporting like the Garcia human trafficking report you scoffed at that turned out to be 100% correct.

A story nobody else had.

[tylertusta]

"Soul searching" among these comments will never happen.

Any "soul searching" among our media class will last until they remember that Republicans are their enemy.

[hobie]

I guess MSM people are always lying except in this instance. Catching you hayseeds in a never ending stream of duplicity is actually kinda fun

[jb]

Its an ongoing theme in the comments here to cast any conservative media as inherently unreliable.

I don't think this is true (but some people take more extreme positions than me, maybe someone has said something this categorical). It is true that a lot of people here post from conservative sites that tend to be unreliable. Sources like Fox News or the NY Post are right-leaning, but they do reporting and fact checking and I think deserve to be taken roughly as seriously as the NY Times or CNN. On the other hand, something like Powerline Blog gets linked to frequently here and is frequently completely out of context or flat out wrong.

There are also leftist sources that tend to be unreliable in the same way. I don't really read those and don't see a lot of them posted here, but as an example I see a lot of stuff posted to Reddit that doesn't pass the sniff test of credibility.

This is not to say more credible sources are infallible. They obviously all make mistakes from time to time, but they're at least trying to get at the truth versus trying to say whatever will support their partisan motivations regardless of whether it's true or not.

Its been said many times if you want an aggressive press that will investigate government and hold it to account then Vote Republican.

I think it would be interesting to look at this claim in a context other than Trump/MAGA. Is the mainstream press really more skeptical of someone like GWB than Obama? Seems plausible to me, but also not completely obvious. Trump is an outlier in many respects, starting with his own behavior.

[Kazinski]

Got any examples where Powerline (which is mostly opinion) was was clearly wrong on facts, and didn't issue a correction?

They certainly got it right when they helped take down Dan Rather.

They were the one of the first to report Ilhan Omar married her brother. Which was never officially investigated, but the daily mail makes a convincing case, with a named source.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8013283/Ilhan-Omar-DID-marry-brother-reveals-Somali-community-leader.html

[Speaking for normal people]

BUT the fact checkers thiemselves have been caught out

Snopes Retracts 60 Articles Plagiarized by Co-Founder: ‘Our Staff Are Gutted’
The fact-checking site has banned David Mikkelson, who owns half the company, from writing articles after a BuzzFeed News investigation prompted an internal review.

[Sarcastr0]

Let me Google that for you:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/power-line/

Failed Fact Checks

The U.S. Climate Reference Network[…] finds there has been no warming for the past 14 years at least – Inaccurate

In a 1996 foreclosure case, Judge Martha Kavanaugh ruled against Ralph and Paula Blasey, thus providing motive for revenge for their daughter Christine against Judge Kavanaugh’s son Brett, a Supreme Court nominee in 2018. – False
--------
No source is completely accurate. That you even *asked the question* is a sign you've turned off your critical thinking.

[Kazinski]

I didn't say they never made errors.

The first factcheck is a quarrel about data interpretation, in fact the graph they show in there fact check.shows the temperature the same in 2019 as it is in 1998, although it was certainly jumping around a bit.

Terrible graph by the way, no error bars, and the scale shows a ridiculously false precision.

This is a much more realistic graph scale.

https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/GISS-absolute-data-scale100F.webp?w=1536&ssl=1

And Powerline corrected the Blasey-Kavanaugh post.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/report-kavanaughs-mother-ruled-against-accusers-parents.php

[jb]

Just last week, someone quoted Powerline with the assertion that a prosecutor was arguing that a defendant should be given bail to prevent the federal government from deporting him.

But actually the prosecutor was using the risk that the feds would take him out of local jurisdiction as a reason to DENY bail.

You're actually right though that Powerline quoted the prosecutor correctly and didn't actually say that he had asked for bail; they just quoted him and then noted that the defendant had been released with very lax conditions to create the implication, and it fooled at least one conservative poster here. Maybe that's their usual schtick, I don't know. But I don't find "posting technically accurate information in extremely misleading context" to be a step up from lying.

Regardless of that particular site, I find most of the blog-ish right wing sources posted here to be extremely dubious because most of the time when I click through to them and spend any time at all looking at the underlying evidence it doesn't actually match their claims at all.

[Kazinski]

Jon Stewart had some thoughts about Tapper and his book:

"Don't news people have to tell you what they know when they find it out?" Stewart asked. "Isn't that the difference between news and a secret? 'You won’t believe what we found out.' No, that's why I'm watching you."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/05/20/biden-diagnosis-jon-stewart-cnn-book-jake-tapper/83742732007/

[Kazinski]

Interesting study has been published by Dr. Roy Spencer, the NASA scientist that invented, built, and deployed the NASA satellites that monitor global temperature.

"It took the better part of two years to satisfy the reviewers, but finally our paper Urban Heat Island Effects in U.S. Summer Surface Temperature Data, 1895–2023 has been published in the AMS Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.

The bottom line was that 65% of the U.S. linear warming trend between 1895 and 2023 was due to increasing population density at the suburban and urban stations; 8% of the warming was due to urbanization at rural stations. Most of that UHI effect warming occurred before 1970."

To quickly summarize, we used the average temperature differences between nearby GHCN stations and related those to population density (PD) differences between stations. Why population density? Well, PD datasets are global, and one of the PD datasets goes back to the early 1800s, so we can compute how the UHI effect has changed over time. The effect of PD on UHI temperature is strongly nonlinear, so we had to account for that, too. (The strongest rate of warming occurs when population just starts to increase beyond wilderness conditions, and it mostly stabilizes at very high population densities; This has been known since Oke’s original 1973 study)."

And that makes a lot of sense, the world population has increased from 2 billion in 1900 to 8 billion now, and the amount of pavement and concrete buildings has increased even more rapidly, so it could easily account for 1c of the 1.5c of global warming in the land surface temperature datasets. Especially since the surface temperature datasets are almost universally where there is human habitation.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/

[Frank Drackman]

Earth was much hotter when the Dinosaurs were around (6-7 thousand years ago) who knew they were such prolific builders?

[Mr. Bumble]

Probably because of Dino farts. Can you imagine what it was like when one of them let rip?

[Frank Drackman]

Fred Flintstones were bad enough, no wonder Dino wouldn’t let him in

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cool. But not in urban heat island Greenland. Not anymore.

By the way, that analysis may be useful; I don't think there is any need to do more than critique it scientifically. It does not need any ideological debunking.

But why would anyone who wanted to debunk climate change think it provided evidence to do that? It isn't as if urban heat islands are located on some alternative planet. They are part and parcel of this one. Whatever heating they produce counts here.

By the way, think about this:

The strongest rate of warming occurs when population just starts to increase beyond wilderness conditions, and it mostly stabilizes at very high population densities; This has been known since Oke’s original 1973 study)

Think of mechanisms to account for that, both physical and statistical.

Maybe exceptionally high population densities deliver heat effects which contrast more strongly with less-populated surroundings, and stabilize by heating the surroundings more quickly as a result. Maybe it is not possible to achieve the highest urban densities without diminishing per-capita carbon consumption, by means of more efficient transportation, building heating, building cooling, and the removal elsewhere of major industrial sources of carbon emissions.

Think decline of heavy industry, increase of light manufacturing (IPhones), and service economy facilities piled in energy efficient glass towers. As compared to family-style yurts, struggling in crammed-together conditions, each with its own coal pile, in Ulaanbaatar, during the winter.

Cherry picked studies, like climate models more generally, are likely not helpful. Evidence of warming is what it is, and it is found almost everywhere at rates all but unprecedented in geologic history.

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

Doesn't this study show that the measurement collection for the data being used in virtually all these climate models is flawed?

Garbage in, garbage out as the systems people always say.

[Kazinski]

You know what is cherry picking?

Deciding that the temperature 150 years ago, when we first stated measuring temperatures on a global scale, was the perfect temperature and any deviation would be catastrophic.

Especially considering we are near the coldest point in the last 50 million years, and still in an ice age.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Dynamics-of-global-surface-temperature-during-the-Cenozoic-Era-reconstructed-from-18-O_fig6_309651389

[Mr. Bumble]

May 21. Temp 54. Wife wants me to turn the heat back on.

[Bwaaah]

A few days ago it was summer-like in NYC. Every other person I talked to on the street, during our exchange of weather niceties, issued a brief but requisite climate-change lament.

On cold days, it's weather, and on warm days, it's climate.

[jb]

What is it about conservatives that apparently makes you guys completely incapable of understanding the difference between data and anecdotes?

[Mr. Bumble]

My comment was an anecdote about the vagaries of weather, nothing more. Today feels like a fall day rather than a late Spring day only one month from the beginning of Summer.

[Brett Bellmore]

Shall we return to that topic the next time a record high is broken by a fraction of a degree? Sure seem to obsess about those meaningless records, when most of the warming is the lows coming up.

[Kazinski]

Ummm, i linked to two studies with the data. But you got to go down 3 levels into the replies, to find something within your comfort level to engage in.

"we are near the coldest point in the last 50 million years, and still in an ice age.". Temps have declined 16c in that time which is a very small part of the geologic record but is almost the entire age of mammals.

1.5c of warming is nothing in that context and almost entirely beneficial.

[jb]

Rate of change matters to the ability to adapt.

But in any case I find that you are one of the rare examples on here actually interested in having a substantive conversation informed by data and not just random anecdotes that confirm people's priors and therefor what they believe to be a meaningful pattern. Every week we get a bunch of stories about random immigrants who did something bad or a small time Democratic politician who did something corrupt or some cold day in May as if they help us better understand what's going on even if they're actually significant outliers.

[Speaking for normal people]

Dangerous Sea-level Rise? Study Shows Net Expansion of Pacific/Indian Ocean Islands

The study shows that the islands studied have expanded by approximately 62 kilometers squared, which translates to roughly 15,000 acres overall. The lowest lying nation on Earth, the Maldives islands in the Indian Ocean, expanded by 37.5 square kilometers, approximately 9,200 acres. Overall, it shows that the islands in question have expanded more than six percent between the years 2000 to 2017.

[Speaking for normal people]

You hit it. Was watching the other day on my Internet sluicing trawl of the news
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5Kd5U1ztc0

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Oh, boy, the Heartland Institute. They may be accurate this time, but if so, it's most likely a coincidence.

[Speaking for normal people]

AND OH BOY you sure aren't getting off your fat ass to know like well 'find out' !!! Oh, boy.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

You have a point or are you just wanking as usual. Nothing wrong with taking the REMF's advice on how to keep a healthy prostate, I suppose.

[Frank Drackman]

Is it too early for Sleepy Joe Prostrate jokes? (Had a Neuroanatomy Professor joking about Reagan having Alzheimers in 1984, guy ended up dying of a Brain Tumor, Karma)
“Bad News is Biden has Prostrate Cancer, Good News is he plagiarized it from Lloyd Austin…..Biden’s doctor says the Cancer is totally treatable, yes, Dr Jill Biden….. tough week for Sleepy Joe, first CNN, then PMS-NBC, now even his Prostrate is killing him……”

[Mr. Bumble]

Rimshot!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Comey: 47! 47! I said 47, goddammit!

[Dr. Ed 2]

It now appears that a lot of things Biden signed actually were signed with an autopen. Are they still legally valid?

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe Rick from “Pawn Stars” can have one of his “Experts” verify the authenticity (my favorite part is when the Expert says the item is worth 4 to 5 thousand at Auction and Rick offers the guy $100 “I’ve got overhead, insurance……” and the Chumps usually take it

[Ska]

If you're going to the pawn shop to sell something you're probably putting a pretty high premium on cash in hand now. If you sell to the pawn shop you definitely are.

[Frank Drackman]

I get it (I'm a "Silent Partner" in a Pawn Shop after all) it's just that he screws them over even more than I would.

[A Japanese Student]

Doesn't really matter for most of the legislations. If the bill was not vetoed, it will become law in ten days, unless Congress adjourns within that period.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think the concern is with EOs and pardons.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, this stupid argument was already debunked two months ago. There is no legal requirement that an EO or pardon be signed at all, so the manner in which one was signed certainly can't be relevant to anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The President of the United States manages the operations of the Executive branch of Government through Executive orders. After the President signs an Executive order, the White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). "
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders

[Martinned]

That doesn't say the President is required to sign an Executive Order for it to be an Executive Order. (And even if it did, the thing you quote is some text on a website, not a law that is binding on the President.)

[Mr. Bumble]

I made no claim about the law only provide the quote from a government source.
Here is the whole introduction. It seems to imply that EOs are signed.
The President of the United States manages the operations of the Executive branch of Government through Executive orders. After the President signs an Executive order, the White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).

The OFR numbers each order consecutively as part of a series and publishes it in the daily Federal Register shortly after receipt. For a table of Executive orders that are specific to federal agency rulemaking, see the ACUS website.

This page contains documents that have been published in the Federal Register.* Because the White House cannot deliver a document to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) until after the President signs a document, there is always a delay (of at least one day, typically of several days) between when the President signs a document and when it is published. Once received, OFR gives presidential documents priority processing and documents will appear on public inspection the business day before publication. If you are looking for a recently-signed Presidential document, you may wish to check the White House website.

Executive orders signed since 1937 are available as a single bulk download and as a bulk download by President, or you can browse by President and year from the list below. More details about our APIs and other developer tools can be found on our developer pages.

[Martinned]

That's all very interesting, but not exactly responsive to DN's statement that "there is no legal requirement that an EO or pardon be signed at all"

[Michael P]

That's misleading (I am shocked, shocked! that DMN would do so) for two reasons:

First, because there's no legal authority that grants the President the power to issue Executive Orders at all, so it's not surprising that there is also nothing about whether they must be signed.

More significantly, because the core reason for invalidity is that the President still must authorize either an EO or a pardon, and Biden was not mentally competent to do so. Someone else used the autopen for him.

[Martinned]

First, because there's no legal authority that grants the President the power to issue Executive Orders at all, so it's not surprising that there is also nothing about whether they must be signed.

Yes. Glad we all agree about that. Not sure why that makes DN's comment misleading though.

Biden was not mentally competent to do so

For better or worse, until the 25th amendment is invoked, you're stuck with the president you have whether he's mentally competent or not. I'd be the first to agree that it should be easier to kick US presidents out of office.

[David Nieporent]

First, because there's no legal authority that grants the President the power to issue Executive Orders at all, so it's not surprising that there is also nothing about whether they must be signed.

Do you understand that an "executive order" is just an order that a president gives to his subordinates? If the president says to the White House chef, "Make me a sandwich," that's an executive order. Some of them are written up formally because they're significantly more complex and important, and those we call Executive Orders and publish them, but they don't have any more or less legal effect because of that.

[Riva]

Are there many cases challenging or upholding the legal effect of presidential orders for sandwiches, crazy Dave? Do feel free to cite those if you want.

[jb]

More significantly, because the core reason for invalidity is that the President still must authorize either an EO or a pardon, and Biden was not mentally competent to do so. Someone else used the autopen for him.

Then point to evidence that makes that case rather than getting into a dumb debate about autopen vs. not which apparently we all agree is a sideshow.

[Life of Brian]

Then point to evidence that makes that case rather than getting into a dumb debate about autopen vs. not

That's backwards. For a document not signed in public memorializing a supposed executive decision not announced in public, the President's wet signature on that document provides some level of assurance that the President actually issued that order. The use of the autopen nixes that assurance, so now some other evidence of Presidential intent is needed to take its place.

[Commenter_XY]

David, one argument I have seen asserted recently is that we have just seen the conclusion of a presidential term of the Deep State. Whether that is true or not is a point of discussion or debate, it will depend on the eye of the beholder.

My question: Should we eliminate the use of the Autopen just to eliminate that possibility (a compromised/deficient/corrupt POTUS whose Autopen is wielded by a rep of the Deep State)?

This argument (conspiracy theory?) is a little 'out there'; still, it asks a good question.

Could Congress pass a law banning the use of an Autopen and require an actual physical signature by the hand of the POTUS?

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

Well a recent Biden staff whistleblower has claimed that Biden didn't know about many of these and they were the product of bribes paid to staffers.

[David Nieporent]

Never happened, of course. This is just the typical 4chan-style nonsense that Voltage recirculates here.

[Michael P]

https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/us-news/trump-establishes-far-more-restrictive-autopen-rules-as-biden-aides-murmur-about-possible-misuse/ cites an anonymous source as claiming the first part, and details how the Trump administration has barriers in place to prevent such abuses.

I haven't seen the "product of bribes paid to staffers" part, but absence of evidence etc.

[David Nieporent]

The Post article does not cite an anonymous source claiming the first part. It says that

One Biden White House source told The Post they suspect that a key aide to the then-president may have made unilateral determinations on what to auto-sign.

Nobody has said that it happened, even anonymously.

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

Now that's the kinda nit only a pro midwit would pick.

Kudos

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Carnac.

[Riva]

Like the Russian collusion lies, and the laptop letter lie, and your personal favorite, the Charlottesville lie? A lot of lying there crazy Dave, almost makes one think you're not being entirely honest in your critiques.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, remember me saying that something was declassified if the President said it was, and you claiming that procedure had to be followed? Well???

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

Yes, Democrats believe the President must submit to a process involving approval from unelected, unfire-able, partisan civil servants to execute his role as President.

But only when it's a Republican.

[David Nieporent]

No. This conversation is over your head; maybe you should stay out of it. It has nothing to do with 'procedures.' In fact, neither did the classification one.

[Riva]

The concern is that someone other than our corrupt former president executed the pardons and EOs crazy Dave. But I know honestly related the issue is not your strong suit so I'll cut you some slack.

[Krayt]

If the president does not sign it or officially veto it, it becomes a "pocket veto", and does not become a law, either.

For it to become a law after that, Congress has to have another vote and get a 2/3 majority to override his veto.

[David Nieporent]

If the president does not sign it or officially veto it, it becomes a "pocket veto", and does not become a law, either.

No, no, and no. Please re-read — or read for the first time — the constitution.

[Magister]

Pocket veto only applies if Congress is not in session before the 10 day limit, and the president cannot return it to Congress with a veto; otherwise it becomes law if the president does nothing.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Speaking for normal people]

Backwards....They were signed with an autopen (fact) was it Biden who did that or was an autopen used so they could completely byparss him

DO you think this picture explains things a bit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW2NwCgXhqc

WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THIS ??

[Kazinski]

If he knew they were being signed.

Interesting that, Ed Martin said he started an investigation into who was in charge of the autopen, and he said the practice at least in the MO governors office where he used to work is to keep strict logs of what was signed, who was in charge of the autopen when it was signed, etc.

[tylertusta]

That may be why the pardon attorney was escorted out of the DOJ.

[Krayt]

There's enough sketchy behavior around autopens I think their use needs to be documented better, like with a camera and the president right there agreeing.

Ironic it's the signature that's the legally activating thing!

"It's ok. It's not a stamp, the machine literally signs out a signature!"

This smacks of some snot trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the gods when casting a spell. Why not a stamp? Why not a normal vector printer tracing out a signature line from a file? What incantations are these folk using, trying to stay inside the lines of the prez "will sign the bill into law."

[bernard11]

Ed Martin??? The guy who was too MAGA for Trump???

You've got to be kidding.

[Kazinski]

Well he wasn't too MAGA for Trump, unless Google AI is hallucinating again:

"Ed Martin has been appointed as the Director of the Weaponization Working Group, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Pardon Attorney for the Department of Justice after his nomination for U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. was withdrawn. In these roles, he will focus on reviewing Biden's outgoing pardons and investigating perceived government misconduct."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is a photocopy of a notorized document valid?

If the person who notarized it can be identified and is able to testify to having done it, is it then valid?

[Martinned]

Valid for what?

[Frank Drackman]

Best $40 I ever spent was becoming a Notary, nice little stream of Shekels, don’t have to pay someone else, and I love that “Crunch” sound

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

I should become a notary and then I'll advertise in your part of Atlanta about being the only "Non-Jew Notary" around and steal all your Jew gold.

[Frank Drackman]

Good luck with that, I've got an Irish name (that's how we Hebrews operate), and I'm more into Diamonds (I've seen "Uncut Gems" a hundred times)

[Swede425]

LOL!
I did a business internship with a safety equipment wholesaler. The business owner was Jewish but his last name was often mistaken for Irish. He used to literally run up and down the hallways yelling "They don't know I'm a Jew! THEY DON'T KNOW I'M A JEW!" and laugh hysterically.

[Ska]

Sounds like you haven't met many paralegals, or secretaries.

[Brett Bellmore]

"don’t have to pay someone else,"

If you're really a notary, you'd know that you can't notarize documents you're a party to. Recently purchased a boat from a notary, and we had to go find somebody else to notarize the bill of sale for that very reason.

It was, by the way, a very nice Grumman 15' square stern, aluminum, in excellent shape. A steal at $400 including the trailer, even if I did have to replace the rotted tires.

[Kazinski]

Well they say the 2nd happiest day of a mans life is when he gets his boat.

And you probably know what the happiest day is.

But that's a small enough boat that you probably wont be subjected to such mood swings.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think I'll be rather happier on the first day we use it, actually.

It power washed up nice, but I have to strip and repaint the trailer in the next couple of weeks before we head off to our favorite canoeing site, beautiful Lake Jocassee. (It was a real mess after all those years out in the weather.) Be a pleasure to not have to rent one.

[John F. Carr]

The "best evidence" rule may have some advice for you. In formal legal proceedings the law prefers that you produce originals rather than copies.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is not generally correct.

Admissibility of Duplicates

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.

Fed. R. Evid. 1003.

[Ridgeway]

Yeah. AIUI, the rules about copies date from the time when copies were written out by hand, so there was no guarantee that they would be identical. Those concerns were significantly lessened (if not eliminated) by the advent of carbon paper and then photocopiers.

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, we have all been reminded that a system of government where the President can avoid answering (critical) questions live on TV indefinitely is not a very good system of government.

[Mr. Bumble]

Stop picking on Biden. The Man has cancer.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m convinced Organs have feelings and you make them sad if you don’t check on them, then they get cancer just to get attention, that’s why I get the total body MRI every year

[Bwaaah]

If you look for trouble, you'll probably find it. There, but for the grace of my ignorance, go I.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Umm, isn't there a risk created by that?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Ed, looks like the Pig has found a Truffle,
so the short answer is "No", after some 40+ years, MRI's haven't been shown to be dangerous (unless you have a Pacemaker or other items that don't play well with strong magnets)
But in the beginning (HT Jay-Hey), there was some concern that MRI's might have some untoward effects, since they're making all of the Electrons in your body's Hydrogen Atoms rotate the same direction.
So what did they do? get "Volunteers" (AKA Medical Students) to have MRI's done and see if they exploded, My Med School even paid a small honorarium (that whole "Tuskegee Experiment" soured the lower castes of Society for "Volunteering") for students who'd agree to get the "Pan-Man-Scan". Even found a Meningioma in one of the Neurology Attendings (wouldn't have killed him, but it was nice to catch it early)
CT scans on the other hand, involve a (redacted) load of radiation, so you don't want to get one of those unless you really have to.
So why do they do CT scans for Trauma cases you ask? cause you can Scan someone's Head, C-Spine, Chest, Abdomen/Pelvis in about 5 minutes, MRI takes 10 times that long (and costs more)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and you don't really want to assume a trauma case doesn't have any incidental metal in them...

[Martinned]

It seems like a good idea to learn some lessons for the future. It's not just about Alzheimer's either. At this point the American people, for example, might like to know whether Trump knows what the writ of habeas corpus is. But how can they find out?

[Frank Drackman]

Too bad Sleepy Joes doctors didn’t know what his PSA was

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, the current claim is the last time he had the test done was 2014.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only way that's plausible is if he were affirmatively demanding that the test not be done. In his age bracket and given the positions he held in government, the idea that they would have passed on a PSA test 'to save money' is insulting.

[Frank Drackman]

They'd just be going by the "US Preventative Task Force" Screening Guidelines which recommend not testing PSA in men over 69, or who have less than a 10 yr life expectancy (i.e. Hunter Biden),
of course they're just guidelines, I check mine every year, nice to see that 0.4ng/ml (my Secret to a Healthy Prostrate? Exercise, Diet, and lots of Jerking Off*)
Of course you could always have one of those super aggressive Cancers that doesn't make PSA....(want to really worry? there are some Melanomas that don't make Melanin, try finding one of those, or the kind you get on your Retina or just inside your Bunghole...)

Frank
*World J Mens Health. 2023 Mar 27;41(3):724–733. doi: 10.5534/wjmh.220216
Ejaculation Frequency and Prostate Cancer: CAPLIFE Study
Best part of the study is in the "Discussion" where they mention they couldn't really comment on the protective effect of masturbation on men in their 20's-40's because they couldn't find enough men who didn't jerk off every day as a "Control Group". (my Interpretation)

[Brett Bellmore]

I get mine checked twice a year. On account of not having one anymore, so it had BETTER be 0.0!

The only way Biden wasn't getting his PSA routinely checked as part of his annual physical is if he was affirmatively refusing to have it checked. It's not like he's in the income bracket where saving a few bucks by omitting it from the tests done on his blood draw is important.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, it was already reported — and I believe you even acknowledged — that PSA tests are often not done after age 70 because there's not deemed to be much point.

[Frank Drackman]

The "point" is merely a cost saving measure, same reason the USPTF don't recommend Colonoscopy after age 75, that old "You're old and you're going to die soon anyway". Ever see anyone die of metastatic Colon Cancer? not pleasant, same with Prostrate Cancer, as we'll see unfortunately with "46". I noticed "47" had his PSA checked on his recent exam.

[Brett Bellmore]

The cost savings, lest it pass unmentioned, comes in the form of the cancer being found too late to treat. Hospice is relatively cheap.

[Frank Drackman]

Same with COPD and Lung Cancer, the Gub-mint wants to save money on Healthcare they should be encouraging kids to smoke (they sort of are with the "Recreational" Marriage-a-Juan-a)

[tylertusta]

We covered this in the other thread. The current guidelines are for doctors to not test for PSA for men over a certain age unless they find something else that indicates prostate cancer.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, like a Cancer big enough to feel with your finger, or that's spread outside the Prostrate, at which point it's incurable, but I get it, Joe's probably going to die from his Parkinson's Disease first. (I still say even money Hunter assumes Room Temperature even sooner, Opiate Addiction has a 5 yr Survival rate worse than most Cancers)

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, we have covered it: The guidelines are not for the benefit of the patients, but instead the insurance companies, (PSA tests are relatively cheap, but so is telling somebody that they're terminal once you've pushed off discovering the cancer until it's too late.) and Biden is in an economic class who routinely get better care than the guidelines.

[tylertusta]

I disagree with you that it's for the benefit of insurance companies. They will get their money regardless of whether PSA testing is done or not.

It does make sense- in a creepy paternalistic fashion- that not testing benefits patients.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you telling me that's not completely covered by "person, woman, man, camera, TV"?

[Armchair]

Plus 1

[Frank Drackman]

But we had an erection and Sleepy Joes not President any more (was he ever, really?) One thing you have to give “45/47” is that he answers questions, they’re just not the answers the Fake News likes

[Bob from Ohio]

"answering (critical) questions "

then you use "whether Trump knows what the writ of habeas corpus is."

which is not in any way a "(critical)" question

If I rate the "(critical)" questions to ask a president its about #1500, its just trivia really.

[Martinned]

If it's an uncritical question, Trump should definitely not have any objection to being asked to answer it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Has he objected? Trump answers question from the press nearly every day.

[Martinned]

In this week's London Review of Books Ferdinand Mout has a very interesting review of What Is Free Speech? The History of a Dangerous Idea by Fara Dabhoiwala. Dabhoiwala is a historian who is a senior research scholar at Princeton, so basically this is a book about the concept of free speech in the US and elsewhere written by an actual historian, instead of by lawyers hobbying as historians.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n09/ferdinand-mount/the-tongue-is-a-fire

I thought Dabhoiwala's conclusion was particularly poignant:

as a consequence, 21st-century Americans have become as inured to the extraordinary levels of lying and slander in their public discourse as they have to the equally staggering incidence of mass murder by guns in their schools and streets, and for the same reasons – the acceptance of a relatively recent and novel set of presumptions about the meaning and importance of constitutional clauses drawn up two hundred and fifty years ago.

[Mr. Bumble]

Obviously the "historian" doesn't know much about American history.

[Martinned]

Sure, if you and he agee it's definitely him that doesn't know much about history.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny, every gun that “committed mass murder” had a human pulling the trigger

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

If they take away the guns, the knives, the scissors, the butter knives, the blunt pokey instruments, social media, and the ability to have silent private thoughts while in public, then we all be crime free.

As the UK has demonstrated.

[Speaking for normal people]

Yes, very obvoius, and by implication that poster should know and does not

[Stephen Lathrop]

. . . as a consequence

I wish I knew, consequence of what?

Obviously an actual academic historian. He confines valid presumptions to those made in historical context.

Legal historians as rule do not even know they read everything in present context. I do not think they have to do it that way, but I have rarely seen any legal scholar who did anything else. Will Baude seems at times to at least gesture toward academic norms.

[Martinned]

I posted a link to the full article, where you can read the answer to your question.

[David Nieporent]

…except for the paywall.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://archive.ph/D97iG

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thank you for that.

Mount is very good. Everyone who wrestles with issues of free expression on this blog would do well to follow that link and read Mount. I intend also to buy a copy of Dabhoiwala's book.

I think this, from Mount's review, bears additional comment:

But the case for some laws regulating libel, slander, hate speech, incitement to violence and verbal harassment of all sorts remains as strong as ever, though just as difficult to define and to police with any sort of fairness.

I think that somewhat overlooks how wisely (if not totally effectively) those problems were dealt with in American legacy media, prior to passage of Section 230.

Although the American solution had been arrived at by increments and adjustments over more than 100 years, its final form is simple to describe:

Government regulation consisted of little more than license for state libel laws, which enabled recourse to civil courts for those who alleged damaging defamations. That had multiple far-reaching consequences, many of which reached beyond questions about defamation.

First, and most important, it got the federal government out of the censorship business.

Second, it massively privatized and decentralized the decision-making power to regulate published content, while making it necessary to read everything prior to publication. What a private publisher might choose to do with proposed content after reading it was left to the publisher's private judgment, but with the goad of defamation law to insist on keeping up with the reading.

With a requirement to read everything already in place, it followed naturally that judgments about content on questions aside from defamation made their way into the mix, mostly on the basis of business judgment, and with an eye to competitive advantage. By practice, publishers learned the practical value of building a reputation for accuracy.

And it turned out that many kinds of destructive but non-defamatory expressions—hoaxes, hate speech, virulent racism, scams, election frauds, Ponzi schemes, etc.—were judged to be bad for business. But because decisions were spread across a literal myriad of independent and mutually-competitive publishing decision-makers, only a tiny fraction of would-be news items and opinions failed to find outlet anywhere. And nobody could say such failures resulted from government suppression.

Third, the effective but decentralized checks built into publishing, made it easier to afford a permissive approach to natural speech and private personal communications. Without looming danger that scurrilous, exploitive, or potentially violent speech provocations would spread through publication, it proved an easier call to overlook legally almost all of that kind of non-published expression.

That may have been the best system to promote and protect expressive freedom the world had yet seen. Then Section 230 came along and wiped it out. That was a legislative blunder. It ought to be reconsidered.

[Speaking for normal people]

NOt sure what you mean by that or what they meant but it is illogical
The clauses drawn up 250 years ago...might as well diss Newton because he used numbers and results that go back to Pythagoras
The Declaration and Constitution (which is based on Declaration) both are thw working out of principles
ALL MEN ARE EQUAL
ALL HAVE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS FROM THEIR CREATOR
GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS

IF you say "I accept all men are created equal until shown otherwise" THEN YOU DON"T ACCEPT IT ALL

[SRG2]

You are aware that the original Constitution permitted slavery, right? Or is that just something liberals claim?

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, the original Constitution very carefully avoided any mention of slavery. Specifically because they thought slavery was on it's way out (And it was, until the invention of the cotton gin.) and it would be easier to abolish if they kicked the can down the road, but at all costs they wanted to avoid legitimizing it.

[Martinned]

...but it permitted slavery all the same.

[Mr. Bumble]

A fine tradition brought to the Americas by the English, French and Spaniards and already practiced by the native people.

[Frank Drackman]

One of the major Fraternities at Auburn (KA? how would I know? like I would join a Fraternity) used to describe themselves that way, "A fine Southern Tradition like Mint Juleps and Slavery"

[bernard11]

I bet they also had a big portrait of Robert E. Lee, and held an annual Old South ball, where they dressed up as Confederate soldiers - officers mostly.

With so many officers and so few enlisted men it's no wonder the south lost the war.

[Martinned]

Yes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"brought to the Americas by the English, French and Spaniards"

Don't forget the Dutch! Only about 5 years after the English.

Our Dutch friend always forgets the bad things the Dutch did. But I don't.

[Martinned]

LOL, how can I forget anything the Dutch did if you bring it up whenever you're trying to distract yourself from all the terrible things Americans do and did?

[Bob from Ohio]

Our bad things are far, far, far outweighed by our good.

You don't have any good things to balance your bad. We have pot and bicycles and tulips too.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"You don't have any good things to balance your bad. We have pot and bicycles and tulips too."

And we have windmills and dykes, too (oh, that's a bad one).

And, they have the Hague and we have Hillary. (another bad one.)

But, they still have the Dutch and Reagan is dead.

I had occasion to spend a couple days in the Netherlands about 30 years ago, before I became part of the non-producing leisure class. It was in the port city IJmuiden and I was there to visit an oil rig. Other than that, it was a pleasant experience with a stay at a nice small hotel and some good restaurant meals. I don't think that IJmuiden is in any danger of becoming a successful tourist destination, but the experience was definitely more enjoyable than time spent in Paris where it is quite easy to get a really bad restaurant meal and what can you say about Parisian hospitality?

[Brett Bellmore]

It permitted a lot of things it didn't mention. It's still a fact that they were very careful to not mention it, so that the Constitution would no more endorse it than condemn it.

[Martinned]

The Constitution endorsed everything it allowed.

[SRG2]

And the BoR could have addressed it as well. But Speaking for Normal Morons made claims about the Constitution which are simply untrue. There is nothing in the Constitution that incorporates the princples of equality laid out in the DoI and the rationale for that exclusion is irrelevant.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, not because they thought it was on the way out. They did not want a dispute which would preclude ratification. Any notion that the Founders, as a group, wanted to avoid legitimizing slavery is historically peculiar.

Thinking slavery was on the way out is what later led to the Civil War.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they did actually think it was on the way out, and they were right about that until the cotton gin supercharged the Southern plantation system. So they did believe they could kick the can down the road until a time when the new federation could more easily deal with it, and not be destroyed by outside forces in the process.

To be sure, there was a great deal of moral cowardice and hypocrisy involved, and not all the founders thought slavery despicable. But most, even the slave owing ones, knew it for an evil. Jefferson:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest."

I'd also say that I expect future generations to judge us just as harshly, on some issue or other that even today people argue about.

[Michael P]

Does Dabhoiwala agree that America should "open up those libel laws" because our jurisprudence about the First Amendment protects much more speech than other countries do?

Maybe the reviewer should spend more time looking around the UK, where a tweet earns years in jail but rape goes unpunished, than whining that the US does too much to protect speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Who said America should "open up those libel laws?"

[Michael P]

https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

This was a source of extreme outrage from the left at the time.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it sucks. It's an assault on free speech.

Do you think otherwise?

[Michael P]

Yes. I think actually changing the law would be an assault on free speech, but bluster about wanting or intending to do so is not. But more to the point, I want to know whether the author of the book that Martinned cited approvingly agrees with 2016 Trump (who I disagree with).

[Sarcastr0]

I’ll remember you don’t care about bluster the next time you get mad about something a Dem says.

Hell, you care about this author’s words

You are forgiving only of Trump.

[Martinned]

I think US libel laws are too lax in various ways. Everyone is a public figure under NYT v. Sullivan, and every statement of fact ends up being described as an opinion. I wouldn't mind some correction on that point, but I very much doubt that anything Trump was talking about would have been possible under the current Court's interpretation of the first amendment.

Of course, any such reform should be careful to preserve the balance. So anti-SLAPP statutes should definitely be a thing, as should cost awards against plaintiffs who lose and sanctions against lawyers who bring frivolous suits.

[Bob from Ohio]

We should just go back to libel law of circa 1960, pre-Sullivan.

[David Nieporent]

Bob was happy when those uppity black people could be prevented from speaking.

[Bob from Ohio]

What the heck are you talking about?

Libel law has nothing to do with Jim Crow.

[David Nieporent]

NYT v. Sullivan — the thing you hate — had everything to do with Jim Crow.

[Kazinski]

The pen is mightier than the sword, or presumably a gun, so it needs stricter controls.

[Mr. Bumble]

Especially the auto pen.

[John F. Carr]

Thanks to AI and robotics it's going to be the auto pen vs. the auto sword.

[ThePublius]

I think we should outlaw the autopen, only allow a semi-auto pen, and limit its magazine capacity to ten signatures a day.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

as a consequence, 21st-century Americans have become as inured to the extraordinary levels of lying and slander in their public discourse as they have to the equally staggering incidence of mass murder by guns in their schools and streets, and for the same reasons – the acceptance of a relatively recent and novel set of presumptions about the meaning and importance of constitutional clauses drawn up two hundred and fifty years ago.

This is a rather simplistic analysis.

The reference to "mass murder by guns in their schools and streets," for instance, is better explained by a more complex analysis of U.S. history. Our problems with guns, for instance, did not just begin circa 2008 when D.C. v. Heller was decided.

The same applies to the "libel and slander" reference. Historians can point to nasty and spurious political and social discourse back to the 1790s. It again was not merely a result of 1960s free speech doctrine.

I say this as someone supportive of Souter's approach to applying the law:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/the-quiet-radicalism-of-justice-souter/

[TwelveInchPianist]

Just think, if the US had lax free speech laws like Europe we could make it a crime to deny the genocide of white farmers in South Africa.

[shawn_dude]

Rather than just a lie?

[Commenter_XY]

Yesterday, Professor Blackman wrote this:

But this president does not get the presumption of regularity from Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues. I've been thinking about this topic of late. Why is the President afforded the "presumption of regularity"? It's not because of the positions he takes or how his lawyers genuflect before the judiciary. It is because he was certified as the President. And he maintains that presumption until he is no longer in office. When judges can decide the President no longer receives that presumption, we have seen a judicial coup.

Is this the case, it is a judicial coup (or, usurpation of power it does not have)?

Legally, what is 'The Presumption of Regularity'? Do state courts have that same legal concept (presumption of regularity)?

[David Nieporent]

Blackman pretends not to know what a presumption is.

[SRG2]

And XY thinks that Trump is owed absolute deference from the SC.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, only the presumption of regularity.

[SRG2]

No. That is what Josh wants. XY wants fill-on deference, because he's a cultist like you.

[Commenter_XY]

That is not, in fact, what I think.

Is the Professor right about a judicial coup definition?

[Commenter_XY]

So you tell me....what is the 'presumption of regularity' in a legal sense? Do NY/NJ state courts have the same principle toward the Governor?

[David Nieporent]

In essence, the presumption of regularity says that in the absence of evidence to the contrary courts will assume that government officials and agencies did their jobs in good faith. But where — as with the Trump administration (particularly with respect to immigration) — there is contrary evidence, the presumption is overcome.

[Brett Bellmore]

By that standard the Enrolled Bill doctrine should have long since died an ignominious death.

[Magister]

That doesn't seem to follow; courts will only judge the resulting law, as the processes used by Congress to pass it are not something that courts would be inclined to weigh in on. The presumption of regularity is about the execution, which is very much something courts weigh in on.

[A Japanese Student]

Breaking News: Supreme Court of Japan accepted appeal in a case about economic freedom and disability rights, to be heard by the Grand Bench.

The plaintiff, described to have mild intellectual disability, was placed in conservatorship, disqualifying him from continuing his job as a security guard. He sued the government for tort claims (a procedural vehicle to challenge laws), and the lower courts found the law to infringe on the constitutional right to choose one's occupation and equality before the law.

Note that the law in question - and all other blanket bans on serving jobs by those under conservatorship - were repealed in 2019, so the decision will not affect existing laws.

[Frank Drackman]

How do you deal with all those hot little Japanese Schoolgirls being around all the time? I'd have terminal Priapism.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. I've been to Japan many times. They are quite kinky. There's a neighborhood there full of bars where the waitresses are all clothed like private school girls. Many of them are still in high school. And there are services available. (I did not partake.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Fortunately for them there are no Paki grooming gangs in Japan.

[Brett Bellmore]

When I first visited my fiancee in the Philippines we spent one night in a hotel that had a bar something like that. (The rooms were cheap enough, anyway.) I had my fiancee present to spare me temptation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

On a serious note, here in the US the rule is "least restrictive environment."

I can see him not being an armed security guard, particularly in states where you need a state gun license, but otherwise....

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Amy Howe's summary of the Maine legislator case, which has received some attention here, is helpful:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/supreme-court-requires-clerk-to-count-votes-by-lawmaker-censured-for-social-media-post-about-transgender-athlete/

I note that the issue has split people of differing ideological views among the commenters.

[Krayt]

I don't know why. One side is trying to define their side of a hot topic as settled, and to disagree with them is unethical. Cheesy, but fair enough. They then go to use the power of overnment to harm a political opponent who disagrees, and, in turn, harm the rights of tens of thousands of people she represents.

That should be the controversial thing.

[David Nieporent]

One side is trying to define their side of a hot topic as settled, and to disagree with them is unethical.

That is not, as I understand it, an accurate description. This has nothing to do with agree or disagreeing with any side of a topic. It has to do with a specific person.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is functionally an accurate description, in that being on the 'wrong' side of the topic was indeed one of the counts in the censure resolution, and the conduct supposedly justifying the censure would have been completely ignored if she had been commenting approvingly rather than criticizingly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

N0, the actual issue is the allegation that she endangered a minor child by copying pubic domain pictures of the championships onto her twitter feed.

Not what she wrote nor the issue but the mere fact she posted a picture of a minor child. One that the high school had already posted on its twitter congratulating the children.

Now lots of other state reps have done the exact same thing -- congratulating children for stuff. And Libby's point is that if the offense actually is "endangering a child" then they did the same thing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

by copying pubic domain pictures of the championships onto her twitter feed.

Maybe it's just blind naivety on my part, but I do truly believe that there will come a day when Dr. Ed will be able to get out a full sentence like this without a giant factual mistake in it.

But it is not this day.

[jb]

Was she congratulating the child?

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in the land of the free:

According to Bexar County court records, Mallori Patrice Strait was arrested for ‘abuse of a corpse’ on December 19, 2024. She was just released last week, after prosecutors dropped the case due to insufficient evidence.
(...)
Strait was treated the same way—with sensationalist headlines stating that she “spent hours” trying to flush her “baby girl” down the toilet. They even published her mug shot. If only it ended there.

After a judge set her bond at $100,000, Strait spent the next five months—including her 34th birthday—behind bars. While she was in jail, a local crisis pregnancy center took custody of her fetal remains. They named the fetus, and gave it a public funeral. (I know, nauseating.)

Just days ago, the district attorney finally filed a motion to dismiss. The Bexar County Medical Examiner had determined Strait had miscarried and that her fetus died in utero. The DA’s office said there was “no direct evidence” that Straight tried to flush anything.

https://jessica.substack.com/p/texas-jailed-a-miscarriage-patient

[Michael P]

Yes, it's nauseating that people write such crap. Compare with https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/05/20/charges-dismissed-against-woman-accused-of-attempting-to-flush-fetus-due-to-insufficient-evidence-records-show/, for example.

Where did the idea of flushing the fetus come from? https://www.kens5.com/article/news/local/san-antonio-texas-bexar-county-fast-food-restaurant-whataburger-bathroom-mother-flush-baby-down-toilet-funeral-efforts/273-f1d2a296-8f3b-461a-9129-5d541cea478e says the ER doctor who examined the corpse attributes the skull damage to the toilet drain. That's why the "no direct evidence" line is significant.

[jb]

From your first article:

Both the medical examiner’s office and the district attorney’s office believe the damage to the fetus’s skull could not have been caused by suction from a toilet.

Although Strait was accused of being in the restroom for hours, the district attorney’s office said there’s no evidence that there was ever an attempt to flush the fetus down the toilet after the miscarriage happened.

Furthermore, the district attorney’s office said the presence and condition of pregnancy-related elements that were transported with the fetus to the hospital dispute that it was ever flushed after the miscarriage, according to court documents.

Maybe the ER doctor thought she tried to flush it down the toilet in good faith, but it's insane they locked this woman up pending the results of the medical examiner's report. First she miscarries in what was likely a pretty traumatic way, and then gets thrown in jail when there's no good reason to think she's a threat to anyone. Yay Texas. I wonder why people don't want to have kids these days...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Josh Blackman, in one of his posts complaining about the Supreme Court being mean to a federal judge, etc., referred to "pizzas" that some might not have caught.

To quote one analysis:

Federal judges say unsolicited pizza deliveries to jurists’ homes that began in February may number in the hundreds across at least seven states, prompting increased security concerns and a demand from a Senate leader for a Justice Department investigation.

Some of the pizza deliveries have gone to judges’ relatives. In recent weeks, orders have been placed in the name of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’s son, Daniel Anderl, who was fatally shot at the family home in New Jersey in 2020 by an attorney who posed as a delivery person.

https://archive.ph/ZMfyY

Multiple judges, including Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ketanji Jackson, and Judge Pryor (a conservative court of appeals judge) have flagged attacks on federal judges being taken to troubling levels. Not just simple disagreements.

The threats to judges have been a concern for years:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-judges-threats/

Criticism is part of our free society. Sometimes, it is done in a troubling way that we still allow. At some point, attacks on judges do cross the line.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like only the judges who lack judicial courage are getting threats.

[ThePublius]

What the heck is meant by that comment? Are you somehow rationalizing it, justifying it?

[Brett Bellmore]

He meant to imply that ruling in a way he doesn't like evinces a lack of judicial courage, and that the threats are due to the latter, not the former.

But only imply, because to come out and say it would look bad.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh man, you got me.

Calling agreeing with me 'judicial courage' and acting like it's some inherent virtue.

Yeah, I sure do suck!

[Martinned]

Yes, imagine how much anyone who talked like that would suck!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Swing and a miss.

[David Nieporent]

He meant to imply that ruling in a way he doesn't like evinces a lack of judicial courage,

No. He meant to mock Blackman. You cannot be so dense that you missed that.

[hobie]

Uh oh...the pearls are coming out!

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

Consider these two situations:

1.) A US citizen at a traffic stop without a drivers license
2.) An illegal who just spirited themselves across the border and is stopped by Border Patrol

It seems to me a US citizen can be arrested and suffer loss of liberty, and that's due process.

But an illegal? Why is their standard for due process so much higher than one for a US citizen?

[Moderation4ever]

Due process doesn't mean people can not be stopped and arrested. It means that that the person has certain rights after the arrest to be heard. This should happen in both cases you mentioned.

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

I understand that. I'm asking about the standard of due process.

A police officer can ask a citizen for their drivers license, and if it's not presented can arrest the citizen.

How does that process compare to what an illegal gets? Can he be asked to show his proof of citizenship, and if he fails to do so, can he be deported?

[Michael P]

A driver on a public road can be arrested if they don't provide their driver's license.

In some (but not all) states, police can require a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, but not generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes . This identification can be done verbally and does not require showing a driver's license unless the suspect was driving.

The Border Patrol can stop people and interrogate them, or search their belongings, with some limitations, within 100 miles from any US border: https://www.9news.com/article/news/verify/immigration/border-patrol-allowed-to-stop-vehicles-ask-immigration-status-interior-traffic-checkpoints-united-states-border-zone/536-60fe8bf1-d379-4363-a764-3dcb160d2cb1

None of these vary based on citizenship or immigration status. I assume there are other rules that grant government across much more authority to stop and arrest someone who they catch crossing the border outside of an authorized port of entry, and also that such authority doesn't hinge on the citizenship or immigration status of the suspect (although legal consequences would).

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

Thank you for the thorough response.

[ThePublius]

"In some (but not all) states, police can require a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, but not generally:"

Yes, but there has to be reasonable suspicion, and the officer has to articulate it.

"If there is not reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, the person is not required to identify himself or herself, even in these states."

So, a cop saying "we got a call," or "someone complained," or "you're acting suspicious" and not reasonable or articulable.

[Michael P]

I think the argument is that the suspicion has to be articulable, not articulated. But other than than, my understanding is that those conditions are what make it a Terry stop. Without a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the suspect has committed, or is about to commit, a crime, the stop itself is not constitutional. The requirement to identify oneself is triggered by the same conditions that allow the stop in the first place.

"We got a call" is articulable but jot reasonable. "Based on my training and experience" might be reasonable, but IMO should not by itself be considered sufficiently articulated.

[ThePublius]

I think we essentially agree.

I was once asked to identify myself by a cop, when I was taking pics of a big fire scene. I declined. He got a little annoyed and aggressive and I said "what crime do you suspect that I have committed, am committing, or am about to commit?" He just smirked, turned and walked away.

[Bwaaah]

I could be mistaken, but it's my understanding that almost all police officers, early in their careers, build a memorized reserve of "reasonable articulable suspicions," at least one of which can be [minimally] plausibly applied to almost any circumstance where there are no other witnesses. Though there's a pretty good chance the officer's fabricated theory won't result in your prosecution, you can still find yourself in custody for no legally genuine reason.

This is just to say that you probably shouldn't screw with a cop unless you want to be screwed by a cop.

[ThePublius]

I'm not going to ID myself to a cop for no reason. I'm willing to suffer the short term consequences, and then sue him and the PD.

Never talk to the police. Don't answer questions. Ask them "am I being detained?" Then "arrest me or release me."

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I'm not going to ID myself to a cop for no reason. I'm willing to suffer the short term consequences, and then sue him and the PD. "

That's dangerous fun. The instances of people suffering severely for what may be called "contempt of cop" are manifold and the probability of being convicted of one crime or another is not negligible. Of course, in our legal system you can sue anybody for anything at any time, and many do, but the probability of actually winning a lawsuit for violation of the Terry stop rules is small.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm not going to ID myself to a cop for no reason. I'm willing to suffer the short term consequences, and then sue him and the PD.

Sure you are, tough guy. Probably ought to shoot them while you’re at it.

[ThePublius]

"the probability of actually winning a lawsuit for violation of the Terry stop rules is small."

What are these Terry stop rules of which you speak?

I found this:

Important Considerations:
You don't have to identify yourself: You are not required to give your name or any other identifying information during a Terry stop. [emphasis mine]
You are not under arrest: You are not necessarily under arrest just because you have been stopped for a Terry stop.
You can ask if you're free to go: You can ask the officer if you are free to leave.
You can invoke your right to remain silent: You are not required to answer questions beyond identifying yourself.
Seek legal counsel if you believe your rights were violated: If you believe the stop was illegal or that your rights were violated, you should consult with a criminal defense attorney.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"What are these Terry stop rules of which you speak?"
duh. Reasonable suspicion.

"You don't have to identify yourself: You are not required to give your name or any other identifying information during a Terry stop."

Depends. In Florida, for example, it is a crime to not identify yourself when requested during what we are discussing as a Terry stop. In Texas, the crime of failure to identify does not include refusing to identify yourself during a legally justified detention, i.e. Terry stop. In other states, I'm not familiar enough to say.

"You are not under arrest" That is correct. During a Terry stop a person is being detained for the purposes of investigation, not arrested. Arrest requires probable cause rather than just reasonable suspicion.

You seem to be confusing arrest, detention, and simple consensual discussion. It is not a violation of anybody's rights for the police to approach and initiate a conversation and to start asking probing questions. If the very low burden of reasonable suspicion is not met, a person is under no obligation to identify or answer any other question, but one should be careful in such a situation. As our dear leader might say, you very well may not have the cards necessary to guarantee yourself a win.

[David Nieporent]

This is just to say that you probably shouldn't screw with a cop unless you want to be screwed by a cop.

The saying is, "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

[ThePublius]

Also, I might add, presence of a firearm is not probable cause. While I don't carry openly, open carry is legal in Massachusetts, as is concealed carry with an LTC. If a cop detects that you're carrying that's not sufficient for them to detain you, ID you, etc. There has to be some reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, and having a gun is not sufficient.

[Brett Bellmore]

Back in Michigan, we were an open carry state, but certain jurisdictions didn't like that. The usual dodge was that if the gun was at any time obscured, you were concealing it, and if at any time detectable, you were "brandishing" it, so there was no winning if the cop could tell you had a gun.

CCW reform was actually pursued to put an end to that.

[ThePublius]

I know. Even though there is no law against open carry in MA, there's a case of a lawyer who was carrying concealed and the wind blew open his sports coat, revealing his firearm. A cop saw this and arrested the lawyer for brandishing. One must be aware that there are people in positions of power who just don't like the 2nd Amendment.

There's another funny case of a guy in Melrose, MA, years ago. They chief refused him a license to carry, back when it was a "may issue" state. So, the guy would walk his dog in the evening with an M1 Garand slung over his shoulder - loaded, of course. The cops got so many calls over the weeks and months, and stopped him so many times, that the chief finally relented and issued the LTC.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How did he get away with carrying the rifle?

[Swede425]

I remember when Michigan became a "shall issue" state. I live in pretty conservative Ottawa County. When I went in for my interview they had a rep from the Sheriff's Dept, the County Prosecutor's Office, and the Michigan State Police. I don't know if they go through all that rigmarole any more, I just renew online. But we sat in this conference room and one of them asked "Mr. Swede, why do you want a CCL?" and I said "Because I want one" and they were all "OK, then" and I got it. Surprisingly, the streets of Michigan didn't run red with blood as had been predicted by those who don't trust themselves to provide for their own self protection.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The usual dodge was that if the gun was at any time obscured, you were concealing it, and if at any time detectable, you were "brandishing" it, so there was no winning if the cop could tell you had a gun.

I’ve certainly heard a lot of people say this sort of thing, but it seems (more than) a little implausible. Do you have any evidence that the law was actually enforced in this fashion?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I personally lived in a rural area where it was just assumed that people were gun owners, and I recall when my father was doing the "safety check" (Yeah, really gun registration.) on his new revolver, the cop told him to be sure that if he had to shoot a burglar with it that he dragged them 'back' into the house. So it was hardly going to happen to me.

But I heard accounts from people who lived in other parts of the state, (Mostly Wayne county or Flint.) and we didn't go through all that trouble for shits and giggles.

Sadly, Michigan has been backsliding in the area of gun rights recently. Well, just backsliding generally, actually, but especially on 2nd amendment rights.

[ThePublius]

I read of a case, the one I mentioned above, but I can't find it at the moment. I may keep searching.

[ThePublius]

"I think the argument is that the suspicion has to be articulable, not articulated."

I'm not so sure about that. It depends on the state. In New York, for example, they have to tell you. But not all states have such requirements, and I don't think there's a constitutional requirement.

You can certainly ask. I don't know now what you would do if a cop just insisted on ID and refused to articulate the suspicion.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"You can certainly ask. I don't know now what you would do if a cop just insisted on ID and refused to articulate the suspicion."

Reasonable suspicion is not a high standard to meet. There may be statutes or case law in various states which require that the suspicion must be articulated at the time of the stop rather than just articulable, but it's not a federal court requirement, as far as I know. And there may be state requirements that the reasonable suspicion be of a particular crime, but if I recall correctly, the Terry* stop in question in Terry v Ohio did not involve suspicion of a particular crime and, as far as I know, there is no constitutional requirement. In Turner vs Driver, as I understand it, the question was raised as to how specific the suspicion must be (perhaps only in oral arguments) though I think the actual decision in the 5th circuit was about what constituted an arrest as opposed to an investigatory stop.

*Of course nobody knew at the time that it was a Terry stop.

[David Nieporent]

but if I recall correctly, the Terry* stop in question in Terry v Ohio did not involve suspicion of a particular crime

The cop thought they were "casing" a store to rob it.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Ok, you are certainly correct. My recollection was that they were observed hanging about outside a jewelry store (I think it was a jewelry store) behaving in an odd way and the police officer reasonably suspected some sort of criminal behavior/intent. If that was the case, then I really have no idea if an investigatory stop/detention can be justified without suspicion of a specific crime.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It depends on the state. In New York, for example, they have to tell you.

In New York, as in many other jurisdictions, the officer is required to explain the basis for a warrantless arrest, unless it’s “impractical.” N.Y. Crim. P. L. § 140.15(2). There’s no requirement to identify the basis for non-arrest detention short of arrest.

But not all states have such requirements, and I don't think there's a constitutional requirement.

There isn’t. See Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004).

[ThePublius]

In New York:

In New York State, whether a police officer must tell you why they are asking for your identification depends on the context of the interaction.
General Encounters (Level 1):
In a Level 1 encounter, where an officer approaches you and asks general, non-accusatory questions, they are not required to tell you why they are asking for your ID.
This type of interaction is based on an "objective credible basis" for the officer to seek information, but doesn't require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
You are free to leave and are not obligated to provide your ID in this scenario.
Investigative Encounters (Level 2):
In a Level 2 encounter, where an officer has a "founded suspicion" of criminal activity, they may ask accusatory questions and request your ID.
While not explicitly required, officers should identify themselves and explain the reason for the encounter in this situation, according to the NYPD Monitor.
You are still free to leave and are not obligated to provide your ID.
Stops Based on Reasonable Suspicion (Level 3):
If an officer has "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed, they can restrict movement, detain, and potentially frisk.
In this scenario, officers must identify themselves and explain the reason for the stop, notes the NYPD Monitor.
Though not legally required, refusing to provide ID after lawful detention may lead to further detention until identity can be verified.
Traffic Stops:
Drivers must provide a driver's license, registration, and insurance information upon request.
While not legally mandated, officers often state the reason for the stop when requesting these documents.

NYPD Monitor:
https://www.nypdmonitor.org/know-your-rights/

[David Nieporent]

I think the argument is that the suspicion has to be articulable, not articulated.

Correct, if I understand what you're saying. A law enforcement officer has to be able to tell a judge why he stopped you; he doesn't have to explain it to you at the time of the stop.

[David Nieporent]

I should say, since a couple of others responded, that I was talking only about a constitutional requirement. States are free to grant more rights or put more restrictions on cops than the U.S. constitution does.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am not, however, aware of any that impose the requirement that ThePublius claims is there.

Nor, for that matter, am I aware of any that entitle anyone to any relief for violating a requirement to announce. In other words, even if the police did act improperly in failing to tell ThePublius why they were stopping him, that would be very unlikely to invalidate his arrest. That's definitely true as a matter of federal law, see Virginia v. Moore, 553 US 164 (2008).

[bernard11]

The Border Patrol can stop people and interrogate them, or search their belongings, with some limitations, within 100 miles from any US border:

Does "border" include coastlines?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

'Does "border" include coastlines?'

According to the world's greatest authority, Mr Google, yes. But, I haven't checked with Bretmore.

[Michael P]

Yes, it does. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

[Stephen Lathrop]

Wow, big improvement. In the 1970s I was stopped and my car searched by the Border Patrol, in Idaho, just a few miles north of the Nevada border. Closer to Canada than to Mexico, but more than 400 miles in any case.

[tylertusta]

There is no universal 'standard of due process.'

The process that someone deserves to get depends entirely on the circumstances.

[David Nieporent]

1) Stopping and arresting people just isn’t an issue of due process.
2) No, police cannot stop and arrest people for not having drivers’ licenses. They need cause to stop in the first place. (And of course one only needs to produce a license if one was driving at the time.)
3) No, failing to carry proof of legal presence (not citizenship) is not a deportable offense.

A person who was detained for driving without a license, or a person who was detained based on a suspicion that he was here illegally, would each be required to have the opportunity to prove, respectively, that he was licensed to drive or that he was here legally.

If they're trying to prosecute the latter person criminally, due process entitles him to a trial. If they're just trying to deport him, due process entitles him to a hearing before an immigration judge either as to whether he's here legally or as to whether there are any grounds (asylum, etc.) where he could be allowed to stay.

There is absolutely no situation where the immigrant is entitled to "more" due process than a similarly situated citizen.

[Brett Bellmore]

"2) No, police cannot stop and arrest people for not having drivers’ licenses. They need cause to stop in the first place. (And of course one only needs to produce a license if one was driving at the time.)"

I recall a recent controversy over whether the fact that a car was known to be owned by somebody whose license had been suspended or lapsed was sufficient cause for a traffic stop if it was seen on the road.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Kansas v. Glover, 589 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (2020).

[David Nieporent]

Yes; I referenced it in a thread last week.

[ThePublius]

It's a bit more complicated than your two situations allow.

First, what happens to you if you are stopped and don't have a driver's license varies from state to state. All states issue licenses to non-citizens here legally, and some issue licenses to those here illegally. [1] Second, there's a difference between not being licensed and not having your physical license on your person. And, many states accept digital licenses (on your phone) or will verify that you're licensed and perhaps issue a ticket for not having your physical or digital license, or even just let you go. A lot of what happens is at the discretion of the police officer. (I know of a case from 45 or so years ago in the Bronx where a cop stopped a 15 year old driving erratically, no license and no insurance, and issued a ticket in lieu of arrest and let him drive off!). My point is that citizenship usually doesn't matter. If they can't verify that you are licensed it is likely they will cite you and impound the vehicle. I think immediately jailing someone so caught is rare, unless there are compounding factors (like felony speeding, failure to stop, resisting arrest, etc.).

The courts will treat certain situations differently. For example, if your license has accidentally lapsed, that will be treated differently than if you were not licensed at all, or if your license was suspended or revoked.

I confess I don't know much about the case of someone crossing the border illegally, except that there seems to be support for these people among the Democrats and progressives, irrationally so, in my opinion, so they will often get the benefit of the doubt, and more legal protection and 'due process,' even to the detriment of society at large; e.g., letting those apprehended walk, who then occasionally go on to commit crimes.

[1] Nineteen U.S. states and the District of Columbia allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. These states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

[Krayt]

There's no reason this isn't all computerized, including your valid insurance. Maybe you need the license as an ID, but that would be it. You sure don't need it to prove you can drive.

On you: ID, can only be requested in certian situations

ID --> Computer <-- SOS valid driver's license

And also <-- Insurance company info automatically sent to state computers, too.

But then government couldn't charge you $160 for not having something.

Ohhhh, I see the problem.
Everything else is government socking it to you qua highway robber.

[Frank Drackman]

Supposedly when the cops found Lee Harvey Oswald's fake ID in the name of "Alex Hidell" they asked him what his real name was
"You're the Policeman, you figure it out" he supposedly told them. I always thought that was a great answer.
Didn't work out too well for Lee/Alex in the end though

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

There is a lot of comments being made about President's Biden declining mental abilities and that is fair. It is also true that his term is over and that the current President's mental abilities should be the focus of attention. President Biden's was slipping, but President Trump seems to have bottomed out years ago. He can't answer questions. Biden was slow in response, Trump attacks the questioner. President Trump appears to be functionally literate and I question if he can even read a newspaper. Everything he comes out with is from audio visual media primarily TV. So, if you are worried about who covered for Biden and who was in charge with Biden, you should be more concerned with who is covering for Trump and who is making decisions for Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

This comment is proof that there are alternate universes and Mod is living in one of them.

[SRG2]

You think that Trump isn't in obvious mental decline?

You should compare his interviews in the 90s with today. The difference is stark.

[Brett Bellmore]

Everybody is in mental decline from a fairly early age; Teens actually ARE smarter than adults, they're just lacking critical experience. And nobody by Trump's age is free from some degree of impairment, we just judge people on a curve, don't call it dementia unless they're unusually impaired for their age.

There's no reason to think Trump is unusually impaired for someone of his age, while Biden certainly is.

Seriously, we should put an upper age limit on office, just like we have lower age limits.

[SRG2]

There's no reason to think Trump is unusually impaired for someone of his age,

LOL

[Brett Bellmore]

He's, what, 78? Yeah, you actually expect somebody who's 78 to be somewhat impaired relative to when they were younger.

Healthy Aging Brain

Trajectories of brain aging in middle-aged and older adults: Regional and individual differences

So, yes, mental decline is a normal part of aging, distinct from dementia. As I said, we really should have an upper age for federal office, not just a lower age. Nobody as old as Biden, Trump, McConnell, Pelosi, the list goes on and on, should be in such positions of responsibility.

[bernard11]

There's no reason to think Trump is unusually impaired for someone of his age,

Plenty of reason. What is your metric, BTW, and what is the source of your data?

[Moderation4ever]

What hypocrisy you would dump on Biden but ignore what you know to be true about Trump. Do you think he is capable of reading a newspaper? Can you honestly answer that question?

[Don Nico]

Do you have evidence that he cannot except in your own imagination? Will you honestly answer that question?

[Moderation4ever]

My evidence is that all President Trump's information seems to come from audio-visual media and very little if any from print media. Most of his choices for advisor seems to come from TV personalities. All suggest that he avoids the printed word. Hence my supposition that he is functionally illiterate. He is like the American teenager that can deal with texts and videos, but cannot pass a reading comprehension test. I also suspect that this is being hidden from the public by his staff and advisors.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Most of his choices for advisor seems to come from TV personalities."

Most?

His chief of staff is not. Nor is Miller, his chief domestic policy guy.

One cabinet officer. Arguably a second in Duffy but he was a congressman first.

A few scattered lesser posts.

Your whole premise is dumb.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you think he is capable of reading a newspaper? "

What is a "newspaper"?

[Magister]

Well, how about daily intelligence briefings? In particular, ones that are not all pictures interspersed with his name?

[Bob from Ohio]

Briefings are oral. The briefer doesn't plop a memo on the desk and wait why he reads it, you know.

[ThePublius]

That's bunk. I agree with Mr. Bumble.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One op-ed analyzing a recently published book on the topic of Biden's decline noted:

More significantly, from up close, the White House mostly didn’t seem that dysfunctional. Tapper and Thompson, it’s important to note, don’t report that Biden’s addled state led to poor judgment, at least aside from the catastrophic choice to run for re-election. Indeed, they wrote, Biden critics they spoke to “continued to the end to attest to his ability to make sound decisions, if on his own schedule.”

https://archive.ph/qVNyf

This helps explain why people inside his circle were willing to risk him running again & suggested the ill-advised early debate, which was a self-own. Putting aside, Trump still came off badly & came off badly in the second debate. Which people and the press generally ignored. Oh well.

https://gregolear.substack.com/p/old-news-an-aging-president-meets

Anyway, Biden isn't president anymore. Trump is. And, he is showing multiple signs of decline w/o the mitigation of being able to "ability to make sound decisions, if on his own schedule."

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason it wasn't that dysfunctional is that Biden wasn't responsible for the function, he was mostly a figurehead, and his staffers weren't suffering from dementia. On good days he had a great deal of input into what the staffers did, on bad days he was largely ignored.

[Sarcastr0]

This is well behind what any reporting says.

[Commenter_XY]

The discussion of who was actually running the country must happen, regardless of Pres Biden's current medical condition. And there must be accountability for the deliberate deception(s). It is not going away, b/c the people involved have not been held accountable.

[shawn_dude]

I'm cashing in my once-per-month "whatabout" card.

Reagan. FFS. The dude was fully senile in his second term. Republican outrage? Zero.

George 'W' Bush photographed with the book upside down with a vacant look while planes flew into buildings. Republican outrage? Zero.

Pretty much anything that comes out of Trump's mouth is mumbling nonsense. Republican outrage? Hell, they've come up with an explanation for how this is really just his unique form of genius.

XY is pounding the desk for accountability but I'm sure he'll be 110% against that in four years when Executive branch insiders are being investigated for violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution. *

Our government has a presidential backup built into the structure: the VP. Not to mention that the President isn't a dictator but someone who works with a team of qualified experts (usually, at least) who work to run the country in a stable manner (oh, the glory days.)

*assuming we have a functioning democracy in 4 years.

[Commenter_XY]

We will have a functioning Republic in 4 years, not worried about that.

Accountability is how you prevent it from happening again.

[Sarcastr0]

Re: Maine legislator.

1. She was sanctioned for an act, no her viewpoint.

2. Pulling a private person into the partisan public eye absolutely has ethical implications, even if the information used is already public. It is sanctionable, independent of viewpoint.

3. I'm still not convinced the sanction at issue here is a legitimate one - come to work, but you don't get the powers you were elected specifically to wield. Seems oddly tailored, and open to abuse.

4. I'm not sure there's a federal remedy here, at least based on longstanding law re: the Republican Form of Government Clause.

[Brett Bellmore]

The censure resolution actually cited her viewpoint as one of the basis for the sanction, so give it a rest about it being for the act.

[Michael P]

Our speech is violence, their violence is speech -- or sometimes "attempting to observe ICE facility". The double standard is evergreen.

[tylertusta]

Brett is correct. The "act" she did was post on Facebook.

What ruffled the left's feathers was that she named a male athlete who transitioned- something that was in the public record already.

https://legislature.maine.gov/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HR0001&item=1&snum=132

[ThePublius]

Don't hang by an eyelash waiting for Sarcastr0 to correct that.

[tylertusta]

If I did, I would be waiting forever!

[Sarcastr0]

“ even if the information used is already public.”

Just a festival of strawmen down here.

[tylertusta]

The "act" she did was post on Facebook.

Missed that, eh?

[Sarcastr0]

How does that contradict anything in my OP?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You said, "She was sanctioned for an act, no her viewpoint."

However, the "act" that she was sanctioned for was posting her viewpoint on Facebook.

[shawn_dude]

Outing a minor and setting them up for public reprisals by her fellow Republicans is a "viewpoint" now?

A viewpoint would be "trans athletes are bad" not "hey look! there's a trans athlete! go get em!!"

[tylertusta]

I usually use quotes in the direct, non-scare quote sense, but I am clearly not using them that way this time:

Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes or sneer quotes) are quotation marks that writers place around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in an ironic, referential, or otherwise non-standard sense. Scare quotes may indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called"; they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes

(Emphasis mine)

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

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro: It's easy to support free speech. All you have to do is call the speech you want to censor an act.

[tylertusta]

It's basically a trope at this point.

[shawn_dude]

Is doxxing a minor protected free speech?

[tylertusta]

Two things.

First, Rep Libby reposted the name and picture of somebody who was already publicly available, which is not doxxing. As I recall, the kid was featured in a news article after winning the state championship. Not exactly trying to remain hidden when you're posing for the press.

Second, even if it was doxxing, it is (nearly always) protected speech.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People should read the censure resolution, which I have repeatedly linked to, and will again.

https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/censure.pdf

As to #3, sanctions will sometimes lessen a legislator's powers, including the right to be on certain committees. She can still engage with colleagues. I'm open to the argument that the penalty was too much & counterproductive. She is coming off as a martyr.

As to #4, suggested in part by Jackson's dissent, the use of the federal courts here is questionable. The Guarantee Clause works both ways, too -- the Maine legislature has the authority to regulate itself as it sees fit in a variety of ways.

[Bob from Ohio]

"People should read the censure resolution, which I have repeatedly linked to, and will again."

Read, but don't know why you think it supports your position. She is being punished for speech. Nothing alleged is a criminal violation and in any other context, would be fully 1A protected.

The Democrats in the Maine House just don't like her speech so they dress it up in spurious "safety" arguments, just like all censors of political speech.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Democrats in the Maine House just don't like her speech so they dress it up in spurious "safety" arguments, just like all censors of political speech.

People can read the censure resolution to help decide if the scare quotes and all the rest in the comment are warranted.

She is not being criminally charged, which helps explain why they don't allege a criminal violation, being a legislature that doesn't criminally charge people.

Likewise, legislatures can regulate proceedings in ways that restrict legislators who say and do things that would be otherwise protected by the First Amendment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro:

1. She was sanctioned for an act, not her viewpoint.

The Resolution:

WHEREAS, accompanying the pictures, Representative Libby posted a statement criticizing the participation of transgender students in high school sports

Sarcastro:

2. Pulling a private person into the partisan public eye absolutely has ethical implications, even if the information used is already public. It is sanctionable, independent of viewpoint.

Because you say so. You can speak, you just can't speak about anything that actually happened...

And the censure that the effect of further pulling him into the partisan public eye. Is that sanctionable?

[Bob from Ohio]

I do love how our bureaucrat friend now interprets speech to not include social media. Its an act!

[Josh R]

I agree that is a viewpoint. But what about:

Libby identified the student athlete by name and shared pictures showing the minor in an athletic uniform with the school name clearly legible and blurred the faces of other student athletes to protect their privacy, while intentionally and deliberately leaving the named student's face exposed

That's speech, but do you think it is permissible for a legislative body to punish one of its members for such speech?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why would it be? The right to free speech includes the right to discuss facts.

[Josh R]

I'm not sure the First Amendment is a defense to a legislature's punishment of one of its members who puts a person at risk of harm by revealing who the person is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. Do you have an argument that's it's not?

2. That didn't happen in this case. This was a public event, the event was livestreamed, and the name and pictured were posted online. So who the person is is already public.

[shawn_dude]

Do you think she'll take any responsibility when the student and her family are targeted for death threats and forced to move into seclusion and pull their daughter out of school?

IANAL but if a school official did that, they should be fired. Libby is a legislator so I suspect that she may not be held to the same confidentiality requirements as school employees when it comes to student privacy.

Whatever happens, Libby is a vile human being.

[Josh R]

The argument would be the risk of harm is greater than the damage done to speech. That would not fly for civil or criminal punishment of you or me, but might for an internal punishment of a government employee (the Pickering balancing test) or perhaps a legislator even without Pickering. I'm guessing all of this is not settled law, including whether the risk of harm is sufficiently lessened if the identity of the person was separately available.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. She was sanctioned for an act, no her viewpoint.

She was sanctioned for pure speech that is unambiguously protected by the first amendment. It is true that there may be reasons they sanctioned her for that speech beyond its viewpoint (although as noted, the resolution did explicitly cite her viewpoint as part of the justification), but that doesn’t render it non-speech.

[John F. Carr]

This is the case that's in the news about deportations to South Sudan possibly in violation of a court order:

D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (1:25-cv-10676, D. Mass.)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/

The hearing continues today at 11:00 AM EDT.

[John F. Carr]

AP reports: "The Trump administration violated a court order on deportations to third countries with a flight linked to the chaotic African nation of South Sudan, a federal judge said Wednesday, hours after the administration said it had expelled eight migrants convicted of violent crimes in the United States but refused to reveal where they would end up."

https://apnews.com/article/deportation-immigration-south-sudan-department-of-homeland-security-a09612dbd055c5d1d88902c415bdf3e6

I think the applicable order is "Defendants are ENJOINED from deporting any alien with a final order of removal to any country not explicitly provided for on the alien's order of removal without first providing to that alien the due-process guarantees set forth in pages 46-47 of the accompanying Memorandum and Order." Those pages require notice, a "meaningful opportunity" to object, and a 15 day period to challenge any finding that the alien does not have a "reasonable fear" of prohibited treatment in the destination country. Docket 64.

[ThePublius]

Irony Alert:

"A Top Law Firm Said Trump Was Infringing on the ‘Rights of All Americans.’ It Runs a Scholarship That Excludes White Students."

""This fight is bigger and more important than any one firm," Susman Godfrey wrote in a press release on April 15. "Susman Godfrey is fighting this unconstitutional executive order because it infringes on the rights of all Americans and the rule of law."

One month later, the firm announced the recipients of a prestigious prize that only minorities are eligible to win."

https://freebeacon.com/courts/a-top-law-firm-said-trump-was-infringing-on-the-rights-of-all-americans-it-runs-a-scholarship-that-excludes-white-students/

[Martinned]

Wait, do you think that the constitution binds private entities like law firms? Or are you suddenly in favour of non-discrimination legislation?

[ThePublius]

I recognize that private firms can offer discriminatory scholarships, but I also recognize that as a matter of policy, the federal government can terminate contracts with said firms.

[Martinned]

So you're saying that the Federal government should be able to retaliate against law firms for their speech? (In this instance: who they give a prize to.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, so you're saying it was one of those worthless scholarships where they just clap you on the shoulder and say, "Good job!", and confer no actual benefits?

[Martinned]

Where did I say that, and why would that matter anyway?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You claimed that giving a scholarship was speech, which would only be true if there were no money involved. When there's money, it's just the unprotected act of giving money.

[Frank Drackman]

but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness, which is nice

[ThePublius]

Yes. It's not retaliation, per se, it's execution of a non-discriminatory policy. What if the federal government had contracts with a firm that offered scholarships only to whites, or Irish Catholics, or some group like that. Would you be O.K. with that?

I think that just as many government organizations offered set-asides and advantages to minority owned firms, they can just as well decide to not do business with firms that discriminate on the basis of race.

[Martinned]

I wouldn't, but you and I don't see eye-to-eye about many civil rights issues.

[grb]

More White victimhood!

Will the suffering of White people never end? You'd think most snowflake right-wing professional victims would see the reasoning behind a law firm offering scholarships to a group underrepresented in their profession throughout our country's history, but nah. Their sole focus is finding evermore victimhood.

Of course you see that everywhere now. It's the entire raison d'être of the Right. Want to know why they're ripping the Constitution to shreds over immigration, legal or otherwise? It's because they've convinced themselves all those black and brown-skinned people are somehow "stealing" from them. You can show them all the statistics and studies otherwise, but they're impervious to facts. Because nothing gives the average right-type a bigger boner than fantasies someone with darker skin is stealing from them. It's what they live for.

[Noscitur a sociis]

(In this instance: who they give a prize to.)

Giving someone a $4000 check isn’t typically considered speech.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think the constitution binds private entities like law firms, but civil rights laws often do anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

And yet the Administration isn’t going to court.

You are so fond of pretext, when it excuses abusing government authority to own the libs.

[Brett Bellmore]

As ThePublius says, the government is under no obligation to do business with discriminatory firms just because it hasn't indicted them.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you actually think the administration this scholarship is the reason?

You disgrace yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the scholarship certainly is an element of the reason: The firm engages in racial discrimination, and is unashamed to do so. This is directly on point to the relevant EO.

[David Nieporent]

Why is ThePublius — or you — pretending that the issue with the EOs is "the government doing business with" the firms?

[Commenter_XY]

What abuse? The government has the right to choose their contractors; a contractor losing a bid or a contract b/c of their business practice in contravention to stated policy is not abuse. Term for convenience contract clauses are routine in federal contracting.

If a Jewish education NGO loses Federal contracts b/c they give out scholarships only to Jews and no others, they are discriminating also, quite deliberately, and the government is not required to do business with that NGO.

I am very aware of my own admonition; be careful, b/c the shoe will be on the other foot one day. The economy is much bigger than federal outlays.

[Martinned]

Yes, I said that. The surprise was that our friend Publius was suddenly a big fan of civil rights laws, when he normally seems to be arguing that they are unconstitutional/evil/etc at every opportunity.

[ThePublius]

That's a lie, Martinned. But then, you lie like a rug.

[Martinned]

If you want to join the ranks of people who think racial discrimination is bad, we're happy to have you. The more the merrier!

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

Even against Whites?

[Brett Bellmore]

If we are to have these civil rights laws, (And I do think they go too far in regulating the private sector.) the government must enforce them impartially, because even if the constitution imposes no obligation of non-discrimination on the private sector, it does impose such an obligation on the government.

This is literally and Equal Protection clause issue, as the EPC was originally intended.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not impartially, though.

Like, trivially so.

This is a grudge.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's impartially until you demonstrate that they've ceased enforcement for racial discrimination against blacks. I mean, genuine racial discrimination, rather than the failure to discriminate in their favor enough.

[Sarcastr0]

This.
Isn't.
About.
Discrimintation.

Susman Godfrey represented of Dominion Voting Systems in their FOX News defamation suit.

Everyone knows this. You're so enthusastic to be a sucker.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, he's infringing the right of all Americans to systematically discriminate against whites. A very important right, to be sure.

To be clear, I actually think that the civil rights laws go too far in reaching private sector discrimination, but so long as they have that reach, they should be enforced impartially, because the government at least IS bound by the obligation to not discriminate.

Apparently a fair number of civil rights office lawyers thought standing up for discriminatory enforcement of civil rights laws was a hill they'd gladly die on, and resigned en mass over it.

[Krayt]

"Historically Black" colleges weren't created to hurt white people. They were created when, exasperated at being kept out, black people said fuck it, we're building our own.

This is just downstream stuff in that vein. Given that monstrously massive lopsided history, these little modern concerns of damage to whites are, while technically accurate, as a movie said, "from a certain point of view", well, as another movie said, enjoy your quantum* of solace complaining about it.

* The smallest possible unit

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it started out downstream of stuff in that vein, and as the historical basis for that sort of benign compensation for past discrimination receded into the past along with that discrimination, it took on a life of its own, found new justifications in crap like "systematic racism" and "diversity".

So at this point it really is hardly more than naked racial animus, only directed against whites and Asians instead of blacks.

[Martinned]

This is fun/dumb (take your pick). Sweden is going to try to apply its prostitution laws to online settings:

Sweden's parliament on Tuesday passed a new law that prohibits the purchase of sexual acts online, placing restrictions on platforms such as OnlyFans.

Under the new law, it will be illegal to offer compensation to another person to perform a sexual act remotely online.

The law does, however, allow users to watch and pay for pre-recorded sexual material or live streams that they have not requested.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2025/05/20/onlyfans-ban-sweden-law/83757603007/

(Being more of a libertarian than most people on this blog, I think prostitution should generally be legal subject to reasonable restrictions on times, places, and manners.)

[Mr. Bumble]

...as in Holland?

[Martinned]

Sort of. In the Netherlands law and practice often have a slightly murky relationship that can be difficult for an outsider to navigate. Prostitution here was legalised in 2000, was condoned for decades before that, but that doesn't mean that the practical restrictions on where and when are necessarily what I'd think of as "reasonable". In practice local authorities often end up with a de facto ban on prostitution through the back door (no pun intended).

[Frank Drackman]

Prostitution is Legal in Amsterdam?
Oh man, I'm going, that's all there is to it, I'm effin going

[Mr. Bumble]

As KLM used to say: Come, have an Amsterdam good time!

[John F. Carr]

This is a situation where the exact language matters.

Popular OnlyFans accounts resell the same "just for you" video many times. From the buyer's point of view, he's offering compensation for a sex act. From the seller's point of view, she's selling pre-recorded sexual material. Then there's the question of what's a purchase and what's a tip. In a town near me it's illegal to sell bottled water. A pizza place offers free bottled water with a suggested tip.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's just one of many legal nightmares that this law will create. See also: "What is a sex act?"

[Area Man]

Now that the Biden audio is out and is even worse than we already knew it to be, when do y’all think Robert Hur will get his apology?

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

Never. They're going to gaslight us until this vanishes. Just like the IRS targeting, or the True the Vote targeting, Benghazi cover up, FBI spying on a President, etc.

[tylertusta]

[Representative Hank] Johnson accused Hur of slamming Biden to try to boost Trump’s campaign, saying Hur knew his characterization of the president’s age and memory “would play into the Republicans’ narrative that the president is unfit for office because he’s senile.”

Rep. Johnson probably didn't understand that Hur was trying to do him a favor.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why the hell should he get an apology? Let the jury acquit the feeble minded old criminal, don't spare him prosecution for what anybody else would have been prosecuted for.

Or did you mean an apology from left-wingers claiming he'd libeled Biden?

[Area Man]

“Or did you mean an apology from left-wingers claiming he'd libeled Biden?”

Yes, that. He was grossly slandered as a rightwing hack when he was only doing his job under the constraints imposed by DOJ policy. And he did it with grace. He deserves an apology from everyone who slandered him while covering up for Biden.

[grb]

In an appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D) of New Hampshire asked Noem to define habeas corpus. This was the exchange:

HASSAN: What is habeas corpus?

NOEM: Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country

HASSAN: That's incorrect.

Stupidity, constitutional vandalism, or both?

[apedad]

Voluntary, willful, ignorance.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Context is everything. If the context is Trump talking to Bukele, Noem is correct.

[grb]

On cue, voluntary, willful, ignorance from TwelveInchPianist.

[Commenter_XY]

It was a Noem brain fart.

[Martinned]

Reminder: Top down management of the intelligence services is how Stalin ended up surprised by the German invasion of the Soviet Union, and how Colin Powell ended up lying to the Security Council about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

New emails document how a top aide to Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, ordered analysts to edit an assessment with the hope of insulating President Trump and Ms. Gabbard from being attacked for the administration’s claim that Venezuela’s government controls a criminal gang.

“We need to do some rewriting” and more analytic work “so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS,” Joe Kent, the chief of staff to Ms. Gabbard, wrote in an email to a group of intelligence officials on April 3, using shorthand for Ms. Gabbard’s position and for the president of the United States.

The New York Times reported last week that Mr. Kent had pushed analysts to redo their assessment, dated Feb. 26, of the relationship between Venezuela’s government and the gang, Tren de Aragua, after it came to light that the assessment contradicted a subsequent claim by Mr. Trump. The disclosure of the precise language of Mr. Kent’s emails has added to the emerging picture of a politicized intervention.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/us/politics/gabbard-intelligence-venezuelans-tren-de-aragua-trump.html

[grb]

Thank you for raising this. Of course the White House would later retaliate against two Intelligence officials because they didn't change the facts to follow Trump propaganda:

"Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has fired the top two career officials leading the National Intelligence Council, the senior most analytical group in the intelligence community whose job it is to understand and assess the biggest threats facing the United States. Gabbard fired Mike Collins, the acting chair, and his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, on Tuesday, a spokesman confirmed."

The firings come just a week after the intelligence assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on the Venezuelan government and TdA. These firings were spun to Fox News as an effort to block the “politicization of intelligence”, but the intent is clearly the opposite. Trump is signaling to all the country's intelligence organizations that truth will be punished.

Now, in one sense this is only petty politics and childish spite. But there'll probably come a time when the Trump urgently needs honest accurate intelligence. And it won't be available. Because in addition to being corrupt and sleazy, Trump is also stupid. He can't understand just how harmful this action is. The one thing you never want to do is punish an intelligence agency for telling you their conclusions. That just leads to disaster.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/14/politics/gabbard-fires-senior-intelligence-officials

[Don Nico]

Fix #1: Eliminate the ODNI and restore the primacy of the CIA. Is there any evidence that the ODNI was more than a noise source for Leon Panetta when his guys hynted for and eventually found UBL?

Fix #2: In case #1 does not work. The briefer of the POTUS' daily intelligence brief should be kept at the CIA where the real work is done rather that at an office filled with simple bureaucrats

[grb]

Huh? If the White House will fire Intelligence officials for conclusions it doesn't want to hear, what difference does it make who the messenger is? Whether ODNI or CIA, he'll be killed for mindless spite and revenge.

And remember, the conclusion TdA is not an arm of Venezuelan government isn't some wild reach anyway. I doubt one out of ten of Trump's supporters actually believe that particular lie. They just don't care the Constitution is being shredded as long as brown-skinned people suffer.

[David Nieporent]

I doubt one out of ten of Trump's supporters actually believe that particular lie.

Much higher. Trump's supporters are stupid and gullible; that's tautological.

But it is an insane proposition. How would that have gone?

Maduro advisor #1: "Let's go to war with the U.S.!"
Maduro advisor #2: "Why?"
Maduro advisor #1: "Hey, just go with it."
Maduro advisor #2: "Okay. Well, so you want the Venezuelan army to drive through Central American and Mexico and assault Texas?"
Maduro advisor #1: "No; that's crazy. It would never work."
Maduro advisor #2: "Work for what? You won't even tell me why you want to start this war."
Maduro advisor #1: "Don't worry about it. The point is, we'd lose. No, my plan is to ask a few hundred drug dealers to sneak across the U.S. border and start selling drugs."
Maduro advisor #2: "Oh, I see. And then this will weaken the U.S. so much that we'll be able to send the Venezuelan army on the attack?"
Maduro advisor #1: "No, no. Of course not. Just for funsies."

[tylertusta]

Gerry Connolly passed away:

Stunning news on Wednesday morning as Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) has passed away. Connolly was 75 and had been battling esophageal cancer.

In late April, Connolly announced that he would be stepping back from his leadership role due to health concerns and would not be seeking reelection in 2026 as his cancer had returned.

[tylertusta]

Cancer sucks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Esophageal cancer is smoking, isn't it?

[Frank Drackman]

and Alcohol, and eating smoking foods, hot coffee, chronic GERD, it's the second most common cancer in Japan after Lung, and they have some crazy operations to try and resect it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Third House Democrat dying in fewer than five months, I believe.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's the statistical mortality for people in that age group?

Remember that the Greenbriar Congressional shelter included a crematorium because they anticipated that Congresscritters would be dying.

[grb]

"Global perceptions of the U.S. have deteriorated dramatically since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, with China overtaking in popularity for the first time, according to the 2025 Democracy Perception Index released on Monday."

"The annual survey, conducted by Nira Data and the Alliance of Democracies Foundation from April 9 to April 23, gathered responses from more than 111,000 people across 100 countries. The U.S. net perception rating dropped to -5% from +22% last year, while China improved to +14% from +5%."

"The share of countries with a positive image of the U.S. also dropped to 45% from 76% last year." Meanwhile, Trump, whose domestic approval ratings have also plummeted, has a negative perception in a whopping 82% of the countries surveyed, performing worse than both Russian President Vladimir Putin (61%) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (44%)."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/global-survey-opinion-us-plummeted-142813779.html

Hardly surprising when the U.S. president is a toxic huckster buffoon & international laughingstock.

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

I'm definitely going to vote Democrat next time. What really matters to me is that some piece of shit in another country is happy again because they can resume ripping me and my family off.

I want to be on the Right Side of History! (Or is that HERstory!!! Come on President Hillary!!)

[grb]

Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 : "I want to be on the Right Side of History!"

By bootlicking servitude to an ignorant incompetent clown like Trump? Good luck with that! Even when he panders to your grossest impulses, it's always via stunts or gimmicks alone. Cutting the government becomes a tech-bro prank backed by endless lying documentation. Economic policy is generated wholly by the fact Trump is too damn stupid to know what a tariff is and wants a "policy" that requires no more work than imperial fiat. Then it was executed with a "formula" written by a small child in crayon with endless backtracking and reversals in wild panic. With that, Trump is destroying the economy he inherited. Right side of history indeed!

Or take foreign policy, which seems to be governed by who pays off Trump and his family the most. In Ukraine, we've gone from ending the war on Day One, to Trump claiming he and his Bud Putin can get together to solve it, to throwing up his hands and saying he's done with the issue. That's what happens when the President of the United States has the attention span of a toddler.

The right side of history is a long, long ways away. You won't find it until the midterms at least.....

[hobie]

I read last week that now a majority of the most promising cancer vaccine candidates are from Chinese universities...what with America being hostile to science and so forth.

See, what's gonna happen is that China will corner the market on cancer then dangle it in front of our ignorant, barefoot, pregnant asses, like Nvidia microchips. And there won't be a damn thing we can do about it except bend over and take it

[Brett Bellmore]

It being China, they'll probably first release a retrovirus that drives cancer rates sky high, to increase the market. And we'll have funded its creation.

There are certain advantages in doing approved of research in a totalitarian state. I'd still rather not live in one.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "It being China, they'll probably first release a retrovirus that drives cancer rates sky high"

Do you number and catalog these endless conspiracies? The overall tally must reach into the thousands by now!

[Brett Bellmore]

Now it's a conspiracy theory when you make a snarky remark about China.

OK, let me amend that, then. They'll probably first ship products contaminated with carcinogens. Happy now?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Now it's a conspiracy theory when you make a snarky remark about China."

Fair enough and point taken. I would have assumed hyperbole if it was anyone else but that didn't seem likely given the source. I hope we now stride happily into a future where all your conspiracy theories are mere exaggerated snark.

[Frank Drackman]

"I read last week....."
Hobie-Stank's stealing of "45/47" "People are saying....."
and they've had a Leukemia Vaccine since the 80's
Problem is it's for Cats.

Frank

[hobie]

Actually, the vaccines are all mRNA, Frankie. I didn't want to mention that and send all you huckleberries into a spiral

[Brett Bellmore]

mRNA vaccines are a great technology. I think there were some issues with the Covid vaccine being pushed on people who wouldn't benefit from it, and there was a change in injection protocol prior to Covid that probably resulted in elevated rates of side effects, but it's still a great technology, and I look forward to its widespread adoption.

Inadvertent injection of COVID-19 vaccine into deltoid muscle vasculature may result in vaccine distribution to distance tissues and consequent adverse reactions

"It was, therefore, cautioned that intramuscular injection of vaccine should be done with aspiration technique to avoid inadvertent vaccine administration into deltoid muscle vasculature that may lead to vaccine distribution to distance tissues which increases the risk of developing severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines."

Unfortunately, I believe the risks of accidental IV injection causing side effects are elevated with mRNA vaccines. Especially since if the vaccine makes its way to cells with an active retroviral infection, those cells can be permanently converted into spike protein factories by reverse transcription of the mRNA.

Something you don't see as much risk of with conventional vaccines.

[M L]

Should Congress incentivize absurdly high state and local taxes by allowing massive federal income tax deductions, in effect subsidizing blue states?

There shouldn't be any SALT deduction at all, but the 10,000 cap is fairly reasonable. Looks like that's not going to survive, it will probably be increased to 30,000 or more.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, they should not. Unfortunately, the narrow GOP majority gives a veto to the reps from NY and NJ on the issue.

[Don Nico]

Demanding an increase to ≥$30K would be a sop to affluent inhabitants, mostly in blue states. Don't do it!
Full disclosure I pay a lot more than $30K in state and local taxes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The big question is how do you deal with property tax of renters who are paying property tax via their rent.

How much we should subsidize Blue state largess is one issue -- but doing so in an equitable manner is basic fairness.

[shawn_dude]

Property values have been increasing in high property tax states like Florida and Texas, as well, so while blue state residents will benefit, so will a lot of folks in those other states that donate to the GOP. I see this as a way to put pressure on GOP representatives who are waffling on the tax bill.

And, as I noted down thread, states like California are subsidizing the "red" states even with the SALT taxes at their current levels. I'm not keen on the $30K number, myself. I think it should be $10K per taxpayer, which would be a boost to $20K for married couples.

[Sarcastr0]

Partisan spite.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do you have an argument for subsidizing SALT taxes?

[M L]

One thing I'd be interested to know is to what extent the "SALT workaround" for pass-through entities which has been enacted in 41 states, has negated the effect of the SALT deduction cap.

[Ska]

How many US taxpayers derive their income from passthrough interests? Compared to wages? I mean, on one hand there are some massive dollar figures earned by partners in partnerships, and to a far lesser extent S-corp shareholders (and not through salaries or wages). On the other hand, the quantity of wage earners is going to be staggering by comparison. And it's not like there aren't wage earners at C-corps making what 100 partners in passthroughs make.

Edit: taking the thought a little further - we have ~600 partners, 6,500 salaried employees. Partners take 25-30% of gross rev as passthrough income (excl. guaranteed payments); salaries are about 45% of revenues. The wage earners are paying more SALT taxes than the partners are, but the partners are getting a pretty hefty benefit with PTET payments where available.

You're right, it would be interesting. I'm wagering it wouldn't be nearly as high as imagined.

[shawn_dude]

California paid roughly $83B more into the federal system than it got back in 2023. It's what people call a "donor state." And this includes the impact of SALT deductions.

So what you're really saying here is that California is obligated to subsidize debtor states like Texas even more than it already does, which is absurd.

The $10K cap is reasonable except that it's been created as a so-called "marriage penalty." Single people get $10K and married people also get $10K. I think it should be $10K per tax-payer and $20K for those filing joint.

[Don Nico]

Meanwhile in the so-called real world, Israel's so-called friends in Europe proclaim their interest in Hamas remaining a governing force in Gaza and demand that Israel declare its surrender to Judeocidal barbarians.

[hobie]

They're probably concerned about the Gazacidal barbarians. 50,000 dead civilians is a bit much. As of April, Russia has only managed to kill 13,000 civilians in Ukraine

[Don Nico]

Just what I expect from you. You call all the HAMAS fighters civilians.
If you lived in southern Israel, you might have the perspective of its people,"There is not a single innocent Gazan." An exaggeration? Sure. By not so much if one excludes those less than 7 years old.

[hobie]

Council on Foreign Relations says 70% of the dead are women and minors which would be around 35,000. Kinda impressive if you think about it. Ironically, the Gazans appear to be the Jews of the Levant now, because their treatment is starting to look more and more like an extermination...which is not even taking into account the famine setting in. What's next? Propose that the living be moved in boxcars to some other place to make way for people who make resorts?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Council on Foreign Relations says "

LOL

[Mr. Bumble]

hobie. Take some Ivermectin and call us in the morning.

[Frank Drackman]

Gotta be careful with that, sometimes it's only the Spirochetes holding the few remaining Neurons together

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "hobie. Take some Ivermectin and call us in the morning."

What's the basis for that comment? After the 2008–2009 Gaza War, the United States State Department estimated Palestinian civilian deaths to be approximately 50% and the IDF tried to limit them then. This time they butchered indiscriminately, dropping thousands of MK-84 2000lb bombs into one of the most densely-packed urban areas in the world. Each one of those bombs had a 1100ft kill radius. Murder has seemed more a feature than a bug this time. The BBC reports the latest IDF offense has already killed at least 322 children.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0r5827dke1o

And Netanyahu is the one talking about forcible ethnic cleansing; that's not hobie's invention either. Boxcars would probably strike too close to home, but there has to be some transportation solution to solve the problem of this subhuman vermin, right?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-said-to-task-mossad-with-finding-countries-to-house-gazans/

Here's the problem, Bumble: People in the U.S. have come to treat this something like one of our culture war issue. Some cheer the Palestinians and some the Israelis. Your side is always 100% right and the other completely wrong. In fact, both sides are beyond all contempt. I'll readily admit Hamas has an edge on this Israeli government in being stomach-churningly revolting, but Netanyahu is doing his best to catch up. You have to be morally blind to not object to Israel's conduct during this war.

[ThePublius]

If you believe the casualty figures from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Gaza Health Ministry, or the UN (whose UNRWA participated in the Oct. 7 atrocity), the I have a bridge in NY for sale that you might be interesting in. Even the Gaza Health Ministry admitted recently their figures are wrong!

Such B.S.

[Frank Drackman]

How many Japs did we kill at Nagasaki/Hiroshima?? 50,000 is literally a drop in the bucket.

[hobie]

Estimated 70,000 killed each in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Frankie. Congratulations, in another year the IDF will have wiped out more people than two atomic bombs

[Mr. Bumble]

Absolutely the low end estimate (for Hiroshima) which goes as high as 250,000.
Depends on who is doing the estimating and who they are counting (immediate deaths, deaths from severe radiation poisoning etc.)
Hard to count bodies that were vaporized.

[Frank Drackman]

So don't attack countries with bigger militaries than yours.

[Commenter_XY]

Israel doesn't have many friends in Europe; certainly not FR or SP or Ireland. The EU are morally and militarily weak. They can be safely ignored.

[SRG2]

Old one of mine:
George Wendt RIP

[Frank Drackman]

Norm "Wendt" to Heaven

[Mr. Bumble]

Coach was there waiting for him.

[hobie]

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hypothetically, a police officer calls out of the blue and says that your neighbor (who is Black) said that you "called him the N word" -- which you didn't.

You did complain about him smoking right outside your bedroom window as you are on oxygen and it badly exacerbates a respiratory condition.

Police officer orders you to "stay away from him" which is a major restriction on your personal liberty because it adversely affects egress from your residence.

And then you remember that hate speech codes were illegal in public universities because they were state action and ask how this is different? In other words, even if I did it, which I didn't, is a police officer implying that it is a crime a violation of my civil rights?

Isn't it protected speech?

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)

[Kazinski]

Taylor Lorenz the former WA Post columnist has come out with a classy statement on Biden's diagnosis:

"Taylor Lorenz sends out a message saying she hopes Joe Biden "rots in hell and rests in piss" from his cancer.

What's up with this woman and wishing people's death?"

She also recently spoke very approvingly about Luigi Mangione.
https://x.com/Outkick/status/1924580715896672599?t=QI_-lweOIXtOF-pU5Bt6lw&s=19

[grb]

Agreed. That's loathsome & uncalled for. Though I despise Trump, I'd never applaud his sickness or death.

But two points:

1. This is like highlighting crime by brown-skinned people. If I had a corresponding hatred of left-handed albino Albanian pipefitters, I could find a horrendous crime by the same. It's useless as any kind of real general point.

2. And besides, your side is more sinning than sinned against with this sort of thing.

For the record, I find any applause of Mangione to be disgusting, whether from my "side" or not. And I'm all for left-handed albino Albanian pipefitters!

[Kazinski]

Lorenz does have a pretty skewed view of morality:

"You’re gonna see women especially that feel like, ‘oh my God, here’s this man who’s a revolutionary, who’s famous, who’s handsome, who’s young, who’s smart, he’s a person that seems like this morally good man,’ which is hard to find,”

https://nypost.com/2025/04/13/us-news/taylor-lorenz-defends-luigi-mangione-fangirls-on-cnn-as-a-morally-good-man/

[hobie]

Another lying MSM creature given credence by Kazinski. And both in the same day and the same thread!

[Kazinski]

That's her opinion, not a lie.

Now why someone would hire her for opinions like that, as the WAPO did, or have her on as a guest to express her opinions like CNN did is a mystery.

But I don't think what I did is give "credence".

What Tapper did was say something positive about conservatives that he didn't mean because he was caught out lying and covering up and he is trying to deflect.

It wasn't sincere and we all know that.

Say what you will about Lorenz, at least she is expressing sincerely loathsome opinions, but definitely sincerely felt.

[tylertusta]

I think everyone now agrees that she's a contemptible piece of shit excuse for a human being.

[grb]

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said Monday that markets and central bankers underappreciate the risks created by record U.S. deficits, tariffs and international tensions.

Dimon, the veteran CEO and chairman of the biggest U.S. bank by assets, explained his worldview during his bank’s annual investor day meeting in New York. He said he believes the risks of higher inflation and even stagflation aren’t properly represented by stock market values, which have staged a comeback from lows in April.

“We have huge deficits; we have what I consider almost complacent central banks,” Dimon said. “You all think they can manage all this. I don’t think they can,” he said. “My own view is people feel pretty good because you haven’t seen effective tariffs,” Dimon said. “The market came down 10%, [it’s] back up 10%. That’s an extraordinary amount of complacency.”

Dimon said Monday that he believed Wall Street earnings estimates for S&P 500 companies, which have already declined in the first weeks of Trump’s trade policies, will fall further as companies pull or lower guidance amid the uncertainty. In six months, those projections will fall to 0% earnings growth after starting the year at around 12%, Dimon said. If that were to happen, stocks prices will likely fall.

“I think earnings estimates will come down, which means PE will come down,” Dimon said, referring to the price to earnings ratio tracked closely by stock market analysts. The odds of stagflation, “which is basically a recession with inflation,” are roughly double what the market thinks, Dimon added.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/19/trump-tariffs-jpmorgan-chase-ceo-jamie-dimon.html

Of course there's a simple reason for this complacency. Trump held a gun to the head of the U.S. economy and threatened to shoot. When he only shot us in the kneecap, everyone was ecstatic with relief. But as the CEO of JPMorgan Chase notes, that momentary relief doesn't change the underlying facts.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One thing referenced in discussions about Rep. Libby in the Maine legislature is that she is being broadly burdened by taking part in legislative business. This is misleading.

Her refusal to apologize for the means of expressing her views (not the views themselves; the concern the means endangers a minor) results in her being blocked from "floor debates and votes on matters under consideration."

She retains multiple other legislative privileges. She retains her committee assignment,* continues to be able to sponor or co-sponsor bills and resolutions [in the current Legislature, Rep. Libby has sponsored 11 bills and cosponsored another 29 bills], the ability to lobby members, give presentations about their bills in public committee hearings [she has done this earlier this year], her commitee assignment allows her to block "fast tracking" legislation, be present on the floor during debate & have limited procedural rights, has her office and staff, and so on.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a1051.html (response to application)

She is meanwhile seeking federal intervention to interfere with legislative power over speech & debate (not her right to sit at all) which some precedent states is not allowed.

==

* The U.S. Congress has stripped members of their committee assignments in various cases.

[Kazinski]

Oh well, she can do just about everything except speak and vote.

If those two privileges are so insignificant then might as well let her do those too.

Take the L and move on.

[tylertusta]

Where would Rep. Libby be without her office staff?!

I'm sure glad that some people are focusing on the important parts, like ensuring that she can lobby the legislature!

[tylertusta]

This is misleading.

Not being able to vote on legislation is a pretty big burden even if she's allowed to keep her parking spot.

Her refusal to apologize for the means of expressing her views

Since the legislature's censure resolution cited the content of her speech and not merely that she spoke in the wrong time, place or manner, this statement is incorrect.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Her refusal to apologize for the means of expressing her views (not the views themselves; the concern the means endangers a minor

That reading is not consistent with the text of the resolution that you keep linking to. It specifically cites as a basis for the censure the fact that she “posted a statement criticizing the participation of transgender students in high school sports” and resolved that she must accept “full responsibility for the incident” (emphasis added).

[Kazinski]

Looking bad for Letitia James, she admits
'Mistakes were made' ("I mistakenly"), just weeks before she launched her case against Trump for real estate fraud.

From Sam Antar's X:

"BOTTOM LINE:
This wasn't a mix-up.
It was notarized
It was witnessed by top state officials
It secured a $219,780 mortgage on owner-occupied terms
It directly contradicts her New York residency requirement under Public Officers Law §30"

https://x.com/SamAntar/status/1925156215803322855?t=HK86tFDJfWL423_txjJGcg&s=19

[Mr. Bumble]

Crazy Eddie strikes!

[tylertusta]

What would make it even sweeter is if it was discovered that these were recorded as the wrong category in her business ledger.

[Kazinski]

[grb]

Movies : I saw Soderberg’s Black Bag in the theater and was impressed. After buying and watching it several times, even more so. It’s a British spy thriller, and - like many of the director’s films – tight, smart, and blazingly well made. It starts with the two leads, Cate Blanchett and Michael Fassbender. They are the ultimate power couple, both being high-level spies and ruthless predators. But they’re also passionately committed to each other in a film where everyone else is cheating & backstabbing (or hand stabbing) their romantic partners. Ultimately their infatuated love is the main focus of the movie. Some points:

1. It starts with one of those long tracking shots like in Goodfellas. These have become more common in films, but this one is particularly luscious.

2. It has some action, but not much. Instead, there are clever set pieces where the characters hash out things by dialog alone. One is a dinner where Fassbender has drugged the food of his four principal suspects (in espionage betrayal) and sits back watching cold-eyed as things get out of hand. Another is a polygraph session that cuts between the four players and will have you thinking about anal sphincter muscles in an entirely new way.

3. Pierce Brosnan has a small part being wonderfully evil, right down to eating a still-living fish. Even as a sushi devotee, that’s a bridge too far for me.

4. Shout-out to Maria Abela, who plays one of the suspects. As tribute to her performance (and the writing), her character is hard to describe. She’s both confident & insecure, wildly out of control & tightly wound, angry and needful.

You can quibble over a few plot points but overall, a great flick.

[grb]

Remember when DOGE and Musk claimed 40% of all calls to a Social Security service line were fraudulent? The reaction divided into predictable partisan lines: Lefties said Musk is a pathological liar and his official DOGE reports were the easiest place to find systematic fraud. Righties were Shocked! Horrified! Grateful! At last, (they said) Musk was exposing all that government fraud he promised to uncover.

Well, the verdict is in. Care to guess who was right?

"Since SSA installed new anti-fraud checks on claims made over the phone, only 2 claims out of over 110,000 were found to likely be fraudulent, according to internal documents I obtained. The policy has slowed down payments, though. Retirement claim processing is down 25%"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doge-deflated-elon-musk-lost-130007772.html

Math was never my strong suit, but I get three conclusions:

1. Two out of 110,000 equals .000018, not .40
2. .000018 < 40%
3. No one is more gullible than a right-winger.

[Frank Drackman]

So you trust the Agency who didn't realize 150yr olds weren't still alive?? I've got some used condoms from Gaza you might like

[Martinned2]

Oops...

A federal judge on Wednesday scolded federal prosecutors and announced he will dismiss trespassing charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka related to a standoff at a migrant detention center.

Interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba announced earlier this week she would drop charges against Baraka (but at the same time announced new charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver stemming from a scuffle during Baraka’s arrest). Federal magistrate judge Andre Espinosa reprimanded the federal prosecutors for more than five minutes, calling the retraction of the charges “embarrassing.”

“The hasty arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, followed swiftly by the dismissal of these trespassing charges a mere 13 days later, suggests a worrying misstep by your office,” Espinosa said. “An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool. It is a severe action, carrying significant reputational and personal consequences, and it should only be undertaken after a thorough, dispassionate evaluation of credible evidence.”
(...)
Espinosa delivered remarks for several minutes before the end of the hearing, reminding the prosecutors of their responsibility to justice and saying, “Your office must operate with a higher standard than that.”

“Federal prosecutors serve a single paramount client: justice itself,” Espinosa said. “Your role is not to secure convictions at all costs, nor to satisfy public clamor, nor to advance political agendas. Your allegiance is to the impartial application of the law, to the pursuit of truth, and to the upholding of due process for all.”

https://newjerseyglobe.com/judiciary/judge-dismisses-baraka-charges-reprimands-prosecutors/

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

Democrats always get away with insurrection.

[Michael P]

What office is the magistrate gunning for?

[Bob from Ohio]

“embarrassing.”

Puffed up subordinate judges can also be embarrassing.

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

>79.4% of babies who die of SIDS had a vaccine the same day

I saw this stat recently. Incredible.

[grb]

That's because it's something only the easily duped believe....

[Michael P]

Doctors are now pretty sure that the SIDS vaccine doesn't work, especially when administered post mortem.

But "incredible" is very literally the right word. From https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/study-does-not-show-794-of-infants-died-on-same-day-as-vaccination-idUSL1N2RV2ZD/:

Martha Sharan, a CDC spokesperson, told Reuters that meant that 79.4% of the babies who died had at some stage in their lives received more than one vaccination during a day visit to a clinic. They had received more than one vaccination on that one day. That was different from saying they had had the vaccination and died on the same day.

[grb]

Thank you for providing that cite. I went to the same place and almost did so as well, but then threw up my hands. After all, Magnus is only a worthless troll.

Nonetheless, I have to ask: Do any vaccines work when administered post mortem?

[grb]

There are those who think Trump isn't mentally ill and suffering from advanced cognitive decay. Each day he gives them a longer row to hoe. Today's entry making his supporter's case harder:

When asked why he supports a higher federal tax burden for blue states, this was Trump's reply: “These are all very blue states that I don’t really believe had honest elections. I think I would’ve won CA, I would’ve won NY. I even think I would’ve won Illinois.”