Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

President Trump has reportedly said that he will decide within weeks whether to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/19/iran-israel-trump-us-live-updates/84272625007/

Per Article I, § 8, ¶11 of the Constitution, that decision should properly be made by the Congress.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes.

That horse left the barn, though. The last POTUS to ask Congress for use of force permission was George W Bush (and received it).

[Martinned]

Coincidentally that's also the last president who did something on the scale of nuking Iran.

[Supremacy Claus]

War is probably the biggest failure of the lawyer profession. These dunderheads have made it illegal to attack civilians. Civilians are the cause of war. The hierarchy and its supporting oligarchs, their families should always be the first deaths in any war, to end them. To deter.

The Jews could not have taken on the Germany military. They could have gone Bilbical on the 20 families that put Hitler in power. He mirrored their every belief, down to a reliance on astrology. Going Biblbical means down to the last kitten. Five of these families were in the USA.

That should be the military policy of the USA. Decapitate, and stop all aggression. No more killing millions of working people who just want to go home. No more destruction of $trillion in infrastructure.

The vile lawyer profession will not allow that because it is the hooer of these families. Crush the lawyer profession to end wars. Chop the military budget from $trillion to like $100 million for those individual use, personal Ginsu Hellfire missiles. Still utterly dominate.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/dod-cia-developed-flying-ginsu-missile-to-take-out-single-targets/

[Don Nico]

"on the scale of nuking Iran"
Martin,
That comment shows that you have no concept of what nuking a country would actually do.
Without question W's Iraq war was the worst and stupidest decision that any POTUS has made in my lifetime. But is was very far from the scale of nuking a country.

[not guilty]

No, that horse hasn't left the barn. The current Congress may be supine, but that does not excuse Trump disregarding the plain language of Article I, § 8 of the Constitution.

[Commenter_XY]

Did Obama ask permission for Syria, Libya? He did not.
Did Biden ask permission for Iraq, Syria? He did not.
Did POTUS Trump ask permission for Houthis? He did not.

Sadly, the horse left the barn, NG. I don't much like it either. If US Troops are going to be committed to battle, Congress MUST speak to this.

[Martinned]

What does that have to do with whether Trump is allowed to violate the Constitution?

[Mr. Bumble]

We are here with regard to Iran because Jimmy Carter failed to seek a declaration of war against the Islamic republic when it invaded US territory and held US citizens captive for 444 days?

[Commenter_XY]

NG is right, and you are right. Eurotrash is just a distraction.

The truth is, the Constitution specifically states Congress decides questions of war (absent exigent circumstance). If POTUS Trump wants to commit US troops, the proper thing to do is to go to Congress and ask for a use of force resolution.

We can hold Israel's coat while they pummel Iran into submission, like the manyouk they are.

[Mr. Bumble]

There is no provision in the Constitution for a "use of force" resolution.

[Martinned]

US embassies are not US territory. That's the kind of stupid thing people on TV shows say, just like TV shows like to show Interpol agents running around with badges arresting people. But it is not correct.

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) the premises of a mission are inviolable, but that doesn't mean they become part of the territory of the sending state.

[Mr. Bumble]

A distinction without a difference.
"he Vienna Convention is an extensive document, containing 53 articles. The following is a basic overview of its key provisions.[7]

The host nation at any time and for any reason can declare a particular member of the diplomatic staff to be persona non grata. The sending state must recall this person within a reasonable period, otherwise, this person may lose their diplomatic immunity (Article 9).
The premises of a diplomatic mission are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission; likewise, the host country must never search the premises, may not seize its documents or property, and must protect the mission from intrusion or damage (Article 22). Article 30 extends this provision to the private residence of diplomatic agents.
The archives and documents of a diplomatic mission are inviolable and shall not be seized or opened by the host government (Article 24).
The host country must permit and protect free communication between the diplomatic agents of the mission and their home country. A diplomatic bag must never be opened, even on suspicion of abuse, and a diplomatic courier must never be arrested or detained (Article 27).
Diplomatic agents must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention, and the receiving state must make all efforts to protect their person and dignity (Article 29).
Diplomatic agents are immune from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the host state, with exceptions for professional activities outside the diplomat's official functions (Article 31). Article 32 permits sending states to waive this immunity.
Diplomatic missions are exempt from taxes (Article 34) and customs duties (Article 36).
Family members of diplomats living in the host country have many of the same protections as the diplomatic agents themselves (Article 37)."
All of which the Islamic Republic violated.

[Martinned]

Not a distinction without a difference. It means, for one thing, that the host state's laws apply in the mission. If you murder someone in a diplomatic mission, you can be put on trial by the host state unless you have diplomatic immunity.

Also, it makes your point completely, 100% wrong. So there's that.

[Martinned]

By the way, you may want to be careful with this argument anyway. People who think Israel and Iran have been in a continuous armed conflict since last year tend to forget that this started when Israel bombed the Iranian embassy in Syria, which made the Iranians understandably upset, but which was not an act of war by Israel because that embassy was not Iranian territory. (It was an act of war against Syria, of course, but that wasn't particularly new at that point.)

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

[Joe_dallas]

Omitting a few facts – actually omitting quite a large number of facts.

[Don Nico]

"this started when Israel bombed the Iranian embassy in Syria"
Martin, you undercut any credibility you might have with such nonsense.
Iran's war against irael started when Iran armed and funded proxy war fighters in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and in Judea and Samaria.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"which was not an act of war by Israel because that embassy was not Iranian territory."

You have a cite for the preposterous claim that bombing a country's embassy is not an act of war?

[Davedave]

Nico:

He doesn't have any credibility. The only question is whether he actually gets paid to stooge for Iran, or simply does it for free because they share his genocidal aims towards Jewish people. Probably the latter - there's a long-standing alliance between antisemitic Iranians and Nazis, which Martin honours in spirit.

[John F. Carr]

I remember this technicality coming up when the United States wanted to get Manuel Noriega out of an embassy in Panama. See Operation Nifty Package on Wikipedia.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
What does that have to do with whether Trump is allowed to violate the Constitution?"

Martin - Thanks for expressing your double standard. The left regularly applauded, encouraged and embraced violations of the constitution with biden, obama, etc, yet feel compelled to condemn trump.

[Martinned]

That might be the most content-free piece of whataboutism in a long, long time.

But, for the umpteenth time, let me just note that I am not "the left". The mere fact that I support the rule of law and oppose tyranny does not make me "the left".

[Joe_dallas]

A few thousand posts from martin condemning trump, none condemning biden or obama.

Your claim of supporting the rule of law and the claim of not being a leftist has never been credible

[Davedave]

Martin is not a 'leftist' in the slightest. He's the furthest of far right. A Hitler-worshipping Jew-hater.

[Joe_dallas]

Hitler was a leftist

[TwelveInchPianist]

Article I, § 8 says Congress has the power to declare war, but declarations of war are becoming less and less relevant nowadays.

It doesn't prohibit Trump from doing anything.

Maybe there's something in the War Powers Act.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The Constitution is "becoming less and less relevant nowadays".

Oh, that's okay then.

[Martinned]

Who needs a constitution anyway?

[bye]

the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641 ) adopted a century
and a half before the American national Bill of Rights and half
a century before the English Bill of Rights (1689 ) contained sixteen
(62 percent ) of the twenty -six rights found in the US Bill of Rights !!
so you have the usual misunderstanding that our rights are de novo

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The Constitution is 'becoming less and less relevant nowadays'."

Well, the clause giving Congress the power to declare war is less relevant. The clause naming the President as CiC is becoming more relevant. So it's a wash.

[hobie]

I thought MAGA hated unenumerated powers/rights. Just ask American women.

[bye]

But you contradict yourself !!! He is doing what he takes his duties to be and Congress (according to you ) is not, yet you blame him!!!

When you were a kid you acted as you wanted until Mom intervened. If she didn't , on you went.

[not guilty]

Nothing prevents the President from asking Congress to declare war.

[Bwaaah]

That would be a good strategy for a weak person for whom it would be satisfactory to not accomplish what he/she believes should be done.

There's a reason there's an explicitly designated "Commander in Chief." In your new-and-improved world, they'll hand that authority to another feckless committee.

Try to catch up to the real challenges of the human condition.

[Don Nico]

When did he disregards Article 1?
He is providing defensive support to an ally with Congressionally voted funds, just like the US continues to support Ukraine in its proxy war against Russia.
Dropping one GBU-57 isn't a declaration of war, but it would be better if he confers with Congressional leadership first.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The ruling law would be the War Powers Act.

The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and can only have a military engagement of 60 days without a declaration of war from Congress -- that means that Trump can deploy troops (or bomb) for 47 hours without telling anyone, and can bomb for 59 days without Congressional approval.

[Martinned]

The War Powers Act is in addition to the Constitution, not instead of it. If the President wants to start a war (as opposed to "hostilities") he has to ask Congress for permissoin.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" If the President wants to start a war (as opposed to "hostilities") he has to ask Congress for permissoin."

And where does it say that?

[bye]

Child takes out an ice cream bar, eats it in front of his mother, mother says nothing. Did mother give permission? SURE DID

[Riva]

Yeah, uh huh. Insightful. Art.II must have just slipped your mind.

[bye]

I know the Constitution better than any non-specialiston here. Trump takes the oath to uphold the Constitution --- not as others see it but--- as he sees it. Your contention that he intentionally and knowingly is violating the Constitution is just your unmoored hate having its way with you.
Same thing happened with National Guard , you complained your silly ass off and now the Courts say "TRUMP IS RIGHT"

[hobie]

Ah the Constitution; a subjective, living document. You a Lib now, bye?

[Riva]

No you obnoxious creep. He simply means the president alone determines his policy agenda under his Art.II authority. This of course assumes we are discussing an executive matter within the scope of that authority.

[SRG2]

I know the Constitution better than any non-specialist on here.

LOL.

[not guilty]

Riva, what word or group of words in Article II do you contend confers upon the President any authority to declare war without authorization from Congress?

[Riva]

What makes you think military action ordered by the commander in chief is necessarily a declared war?

[TwelveInchPianist]

The CiC clause, in conjunction with the first amendment.

[Sarcastr0]

It's interesting, though not unexpected, to see how much the America First isolationists have melted away, replaced with basically a retread of the neocons of yore.

There's some holdouts, to be sure, but the MAGA cult of personality remains stronger than any ideology.

[Bwaaah]

"NO!" screamed the MAGAs. "We can't support Donald Trump! We are America First isolationists!"

You and your cartoonish visions.

[Martinned]

There are sides within the Trumpist camp on this point, and you definitely picked one.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/18/media/fox-news-mark-levin-tucker-carlson-maga-media-israel-iran

[Bwaaah]

It's as if the people who voted for Trump are not one monolithic hive mind.

[Don Nico]

You grossly underestimate the fraction of the Isolationist wing of MAGA.
Just like you underestimate American support of Israel, as long as Israel is doing the warfighting. You could say similar things about Ukraine.

[Kazinski]

Like I said before, he is more likely to get impeached and removed for not bombing Iran as he would be for bombing Iran, either way 100% of democrats will vote for impeachment.

The question is only how many GOP hawks or doves line up on either side of the question, and of course the answer is not enough.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Some commenters insist Trump ought to attack Iran. If you are one of those, please explain how you think the ensuing war between Iran and the U.S. will be conducted by each side. When will it end? On what terms?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably with better results than Barry Hussein Osama's stupid decision to restart the Afghanistan Wah in 2009 (The "Good Wah" he called it)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unconditional surrender.

[Don Nico]

Mr. Ed. It's daytime. Wake up from your dream

[Riva]

One, maybe two GBU-57 bunker busters, maybe some additional ballistics to soften things up. Israelis can handle the rest. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. They can voluntarily abandon their nuclear pretensions or we can make them. Their choice.

[Paladin_44]

A little background on how the bomb is supposed to work. The Fordo complex apparently is quite deep in rock and reinforced concrete - may be a bit of a challenge.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-fordo-bunker-buster-bomb.html

[Riva]

Uh huh, I'm sure the facility will function just fine after tons of rubble collapse all the areas above the really reinforced concrete section holding the centrifuges. No water, no air, no power. Everything will function smoothly. But assuming anything is left, that's what Israeli commandos are for.

[Don Nico]

1) Your "soften things up" dos not work. Converting the top 20 feet of rock into sand does not materially affect to depth of penetration of the MOP
2) Fully confined, the 2 tons of explosive in the MOP will severely damage structures that are closer than 10 meters. That means that the MOP must be directly on target. we actually have no idea where the the work chambers in Fordow are within tens of meters.
3) For now the best that can be done is destroying the entrances and air shafts and continuing attacks on economic targets, missile launchers and munition factories. Israel can to that over the next two weeks.

[Armchair]

Probably same way this one did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

[Stephen Lathrop]

"Show username," discloses I've got a lineup: Drackman, Ed, Riva, and Armchair. I wonder what their answers were? But not much.

Still interested if anyone sane enough to avoid muting (a very low bar) cares to answer my questions.

[Don Nico]

A fair question, I'd say.
If the American public gets a whiff of regime change followed by nation building, support for Trump's position will collapse. He knows that.

[Moderation4ever]

I certainly wish we had a better President making this decision. President Trump is too susceptible to the suggestion of the last person he talks to and he is too impulsive. There is no good coming from Iran becoming a country with atomic weapons. Maybe this is the time for limited strikes to take out the uranium enrichment facilities. Maybe Israel can degrade the process enough that Iran is set back 5 to 10 years. I would like a more analytical President making the call.

[Don Nico]

Certainly, Biden and trump and Bush were not "better President's" to make this decision.
All were committed to "nation building" as in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. How well did that work?
Obama - too arrogant
Biden – too senile
Bush – too stupid
As for Hilary, she was a classic neocon warmonger and too arrogant.
We've got who we've got

[bye]

I think it might come down to a choice between bad and horrible and Iran will have to be "neutralized". I have no idea what Iran will do though at some point the population might rise up figuring that their choice is our choice. But when it ends and on what terms are not relevant. Hamas should have been extirpated , it would have been fewer deaths and suffering overall

My main point is that the utilitrianism of war always makes it worse. No deals with the Devil

[not guilty]

On the last open thread I observed that POLITICO reported that the Trump administration is cutting a suicide prevention hotline program for LGBTQ+ youth, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/18/lgbtq-hotline-trump-cut-00413306 , and I wondered whether the self-proclaimed "pro-life" crowd would weigh in on this.

As predictably as clockwork, another commenter questioned why not have a suicide prevention program for all youth? Why make the LGBTQ+ distinction? As if suicide prevention were a zero sum game.

The tired old "all lives matter" retort! The best rejoinder to that has come from a commenter on these threads, whose handle I can't recall so as to give proper credit: suppose your wife asks you, "Honey, do you love me?" Will you reply, "Of course, dear. I love all women"?

This ill-considered announcement is all about Donald Trump reminding his MAGA cult followers that he hates the same folks that they do.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe if they stop letting doctors chop off perfectly healthy Peni, Balls, Uteri, Ovarii and Breasts there won't be so many suicidal LGBTQ (can someone explain what the "Q" is ?) peoples

[hobie]

Foreskins?

[Brett Bellmore]

"As predictably as clockwork, another commenter questioned why not have a suicide prevention program for all youth? Why make the LGBTQ+ distinction? As if suicide prevention were a zero sum game."

Why not have water fountains only for whites? Why make the white/black distinction? As if hydration were a zero sum game...

The tired "all lives matter" retort, as though that were really true, when we're supposed to understand that only some of them matter, that some animals are more equal than others.

[Sarcastr0]

Zero sum isn’t operable here.

The existence of a suicide hotline for LGBT does not mean there is somehow less suicide hotline for everyone else.

Just a reflex whenever something isn’t for quite straight guys, it seems.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That sounds like a question of fact.

Is there another teen suicide hotline? What are its limitations?

That said, we already know the Trump Administration's true motivations, which have nothing to do with any fact not primarily related to the bigotry of Trump's base.

[Sarcastr0]

It's the same hotline; they just had an option to speak to a specialist in LGBT-related issues. That option is what's at issue.

The administration accused the service of "radical gender ideology".
Man, culture war brain makes people say some stupid shit.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That sounds all well and good, but doesn't it also depend on what the kids who call these hotlines are being advised to do?

[Sarcastr0]

Advised to do as part of a suicide prevention call?

I'm willing to give that kind of service the benefit of the doubt until I see any evidence of anything more than the usual talking people through a crisis.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The existence of a suicide hotline for LGBT does not mean there is somehow less suicide hotline for everyone else."

Bullshyte. Resources are finite.

[hobie]

Is there any special lines for veterans, christians, jews, farmers or any other general hayseed interest group? Asking for a friend.

[not guilty]

I suspect there may be dedicated lines for veterans, but just how does that matter?

[hobie]

Doesn't matter at all to me. But if 5 minutes goes by and there hasn't been an example of right wing hypocrisy in that time, one is obligated to try and dig some up until the next 5 minutes arrive

[bye]

Folks, "some animals are more equal than others' comes from Orwell who FULLY supported the very things Brett attacks. FULLY

https://jacobin.com/2023/10/george-orwell-class-britain-spanish-civil-war-nineteen-eighty-four

[Brett Bellmore]

Orwell combined stupid politics with a turn for a phrase, but he was somewhat redeemed by the fact that, though he couldn't see how the evils grew out of his politics, he could at least SEE the evils, and wrote passionately about them.

[Bwaaah]

[bye]

we don't have an Arsonist hotline or a Necrophiliac hotline or a Pedophilia hotline --- because they are all perversions. You support and extend and justify perverson when you make a big deal of it.

This person doesn't need a hotline
https://cdn.openart.ai/stable_diffusion/8b59db52cd2fe2f72adb1737fe8b2b7be46efe81_2000x2000.webp

[not guilty]

Do you favor LGBT folks committing suicide, bye? Yes or no?

[Joe_dallas]

NG - getting infuratiated over a non issue.

The suicide hot line still exists and will continue to exist with no substantive cutbacks or curtailments. Get back on your meds

[Frank Drackman]

Sometimes Suicide is the best choice, no matter your orientation, I’ve heard it’s painless and I can take or leave it as I please

[Riva]

To the extent anything on Politico can be accepted as accurate, the Trump administration is not eliminating the suicide prevention line, or even help for troubled minors. He is simply no longer funding the Trevor Project a leftist activist trans/gay group with a questionable agenda. Who knows what they were doing exactly (the article conveniently doesn’t elaborate) but these repulsive slugs aren’t needed in any capacity.

[not guilty]

As I had surmised, the silence of the "pro-life" crowd here speaks loudly.

[Riva]

In case you didn’t understand, not funding the Trevor Project’s gay/trans proselytizing is not equivalent to defunding suicide prevention.

You asked a question. I answered it. But again it appears you are incapable of responding intelligently. So we get more nonsense. I’ve had enough. Go away.

[Brett Bellmore]

Riva seems to be right about this: All they've done is decided to stop having a number to press to divert you to a private sector advocacy group.

And Politico's reporting does seem a bit dubious. Last line in the article: " HHS had already proposed removing funding for the hotline in its fiscal year 2026 budget."

Following the link, "The Budget maintains funding for suicide prevention programs, including for the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline to respond to an estimated 9 million contacts in FY 2026."

"Within Mental Health, the Budget provides $519.6 million for the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Funding will continue support for the Lifeline, which offers a direct connection to immediate support and resources for anyone experiencing a mental health, suicide, or substance-use-related challenge. It also provides funding for other suicide prevention resources, including the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention ($28.2 million); Garrett Lee Smith Youth Suicide Prevention Programs (campus $8.5 million; state $43.8 million); the
Suicide Prevention Resource Center ($11 million); and the Native American Suicide Prevention Initiative ($3.9 million)"

Starting on page 365, there's a list of programs for which funding is to be terminated. The suicide hotline is conspicuously absent from it.

So, removing funding by maintaining it?

[Sarcastr0]

a private sector advocacy group

If you're so partisan you can't tell the service being provided here from advocacy, no wonder you are incapable of evincing any problem with these kids committing suicide.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you are incapable of evincing any problem with these kids committing suicide"

He never said or even implied that.

I know he is your current Emmanuel Goldstein but you might turn the false accusations down a tad.

[Sarcastr0]

evincing (present participle)
reveal the presence of (a quality or feeling)

[Riva]

Calm down little communist girl that never smiled. As for your writing style, awkward. But Marxists are not know for their eloquence.

[Joe_dallas]

suicide prevention is time sensitive

Adding extra button delaying the response probably isnt a good idea.

[Sarcastr0]

This is an insulting comment.
Did you think this weak-ass shit would convince *anyone?*

[Bwaaah]

Not Guilty: "Why make the LGBTQ+ distinction?"

It's not for "LGBTQ+" people, NG. It's for "LGB+" people. (See here)

That, of course, should only matter to people (such as yourself) for whom such classifications are essential. But as you know and demonstrate, it's all just kind of the same thing...all those properly classified variations in human sexuality.

In your mind, does the "+" include heterosexuals, or is it an exclusive plus?

What happens if I'm gay and suicidal and I don't press "3" for the LGB+ service? If the counselor finds out I'm gay, do they say, "Oh. Please hold for a moment while I transfer you to that department?"

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between an institution staffed with caring people and a sick political paradigm.

[not guilty]

Is there any evidence that the “Press 3" option is not working well?

What of the maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

I used the "LGBTQ+" acronym because that is what appears in the Politico article that I link to.

There is no credible explanation for this nefarious action other than hatemongering.

[Bwaaah]

There's no lack of suicide prevention hotline support for ANYBODY.

You raise the "LGBTQ+" issue, once again, and act as if people who don't seize on that political silo have a hangup.

What's your next hangup?

[Martinned]

The Dutch parliament yesterday voted against a Labour/Green motion to stop supplying Israel with components it needs for the Iron Dome. I tend to think that that was right (i.e. that the Netherlands shouldn't embargo defensive equipment), but from a strict Schelling-game theory perspective you can see the logic. The stronger the Iron Dome, the more trigger-happy Israel is on the offensive. It's the same reason why it might not be a good idea for Trump to have a functioning Star Wars programme.

I'm an economist, I'm steeped in game theory reasoning, but this is one of those situations where I'm not following it all the way. Hmm...

[bye]

That meta-thing that is not allowing you to follow it is called conscience. You know you are a schmuck if you call Jews persecuted world-wide and history-wide 'trigger happy"

[Bwaaah]

Martinned Logic: If people can defend themselves, that will cause their enemies to be more brutal. And that is why I am skeptical of defense.

Conscience? I'm an economist.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure what that word vomit is supposed to represent, but it in no way resembles my view. (Or anyone else's as far as I'm aware.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do not forget that Reagan planned to give Star Wars to the Soviets, and did give them the Permissive Action Link technology.

[Martinned]

I'm sure he did. Famously kind to communists, that Reagan.

[Riva]

Hmm…how do you game theory out Iran’s targeting of a major Israeli hospital, other civilian areas, and its intended (or maybe actual) use of cluster bombs? Rather like certain parties game theorized out some plans in the 1940s I suspect.

[Moderation4ever]

Another way to look at this is that Iron Dome gives the people of Israel protection and that leave the military to focus on military targets. If the Israeli population was really being hit there might be more pressure to punish the Iranian people in a likewise manner.

[Martinned]

So then why is Trump warning people to get out of Teheran? As far as I can tell, neither Israel nor Iran is particularly worried about complying with the rules against targeting civilians.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose because Tehran is lousy with legitimate military targets, and bombs are not absolutely guaranteed to land where intended.

[Martinned]

Teheran is a city of 10 million people. It's enormous.

[Joe_dallas]

Another flat out lie from an anti-semite

As has been well documented, Israel has been extremely careful to avoid civilian casualties and does not target civilians.

[Martinned]

LOOOL!!!! Particularly if you put it like that, without narrowing the statement to the Iran conflict, it's completely ridiculous. You know that there's not a single civilian building left standing in Gaza, right? And on the West Bank the IDF also demolishes people's homes whenever they feel like it.

As for Iran, here are some pictures: https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-attacks-explosions-israel/33441979.html

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 36 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"LOOOL!!!! Particularly if you put it like that, without narrowing the statement to the Iran conflict, it's completely ridiculous. You know that there's not a single civilian building left standing in Gaza, right?"

Martin - check your facts, what you posted is not credible.

[Davedave]

Martin doesn't care if it's credible. He's stooging for Iran, and anyone else who wants to kill Jews. Nazis lie, because telling the truth doesn't achieve their aims.

[Bob from Ohio]

"game theory reasoning"

Game this: Israel tolerated years of rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah, only responding with periodic limited responses. No Iron Dome, they would have demolished Lebanon and Gaza years before. If October 7 had not forced their hand, probably still just "mowing grass".

[Martinned]

My (new) home town is slowly being turned into a fortress because NATO is coming to town next week. As a civil servant I'm instructed to work from home all week, so that they can keep the number of security people etc. who look after the government buildings to a minimum. An entire 4-lane street has been shut down since April and has been covered in temporary buildings for the summit. (Which wouldn't be so bad, but it's quite close to my house, so that means more traffic in my street.) The street in front of the Hilton, which is on my usual route to work, has also had loads of screens and road blocks erected, although the road itself was still open for traffic this week. (It won't be next week.) I've heard that Trump is staying in Noordwijk by the beach, and that they're closing down the entire section of the beach in front of the hotel for him.

The summit is two days people. Back when I used to live in Brussels EU-summits only used to have an effect for about 2 blocks max in all directions from Schumann Square. Of course, the American President doesn't come to EU-summits...

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor you.

[Martinned]

Indeed. It's the price I pay for not living in proverbial Poughkeepsie. Think of how crazy it will get once Trump becomes a permanent resident here!

[Frank Drackman]

Think how crazy 45/47 (or anyone) would be to live in your Shithole

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash, Mar-A-Lago is much better than any location in The Netherlands. No need to worry about an ex-POTUS Trump relocating to that shithole country.

[Frank Drackman]

Auburn Alabama is much nicer than most places in Europe (I’ll make an exception for Rota)

[Martinned]

Not voluntarily, no.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No need to worry about an ex-POTUS Trump relocating"

Our Dutch friend is suggesting he will be in the Hague to stand trial for war crimes. Ludicrous of course but consider the source.

Its not just "not guilty" who has fantasies about Trump in jail.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I still remember the 2004 Dem Convention in Boston...

[Armchair]

You can always move to Kiev. There's no NATO there to bother you.

[Martinned]

It's not NATO that bothers me. It's the Dutch government's security measures.

[Armchair]

Well, there have been two assassination attempts against Trump in the last year or so.

And the Netherlands, well, the penalty for political assassination is just so light. It's only like what...12 years in prison with good behavior? If someone really didn't like Trump, perhaps they would think 12 years was a small penalty to pay.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a fair complaint, I'd say. In the name of security most governments have transformed their officials into aristocracy. This is taken to absurd lengths for American Presidents.

Well, I guess it's just recognizing reality, that the government's officials ARE now the modern aristocracy.

[Riva]

Imagine how much more prosperous and free Europe would be without layer upon layer of useless control freak and power hungry bureaucrats imposing their own agendas and sucking the life out of the continent.

[Martinned]

LOL, the crazies are having a press conference, and because the weather is nice they decided to do it outside: https://bsky.app/profile/mollyquell.bsky.social/post/3lrzsmk5pgk2d

(Also: they probably don't have two pennies to rub together, and most sensible locations probably wouldn't rent to them if they did.)

[John F. Carr]

Even if we some day have a president I like, I do not want him (her) coming to town. Too much trouble.

I did get to see F-22s fly overhead when President Biden came to the area, not to my town. That was OK.

[Commenter_XY]

The 'Maybe not so nutty anymore' 9th Circuit affirms that POTUS Trump is CINC. And doesn't need Gruesome Newsome's permission to deploy the National Guard.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-allowed-keep-using-national-042525951.html

Progtard posters hardest hit. 🙁
Keep hope alive, guys. 😉

[Martinned]

A Republic, if you can keep it...

[Mr. Bumble]

Going on 250 years and counting.

[Martinned]

It's the counting that's the problem.

[OpinionsVary]

Per the US constitution, Trump is only commander-in-chief of the national guard when they are called into "actual Service". In other times, he is not. The question was - quite properly - whether these national guard has been properly called into federal service (which after all is a power given to Congress not the President). In this case they decided yes they had been. But it was a perfectly proper question to ask and, if they hadn't been, enforce.

[Riva]

The question was never one properly for the courts. A district court judge had no business substituting his policy views over the president. But that seems to be all the rage in federal judicial circles these days. I guess now that the corrupt Biden DOJ can’t weaponize its powers against President Trump anymore, lawfare needs a new outlet.

And, as an aside, a lot of recent news exposing that corrupt Biden/DOJ lawfare.

[OpinionsVary]

Nonsense. This was about a law passed by Congress, which is has to be, because, again, it is Congress's power to provide for calling up the national guard. Not the president's. It is absolutely correct that that law can be enforced and interpreted by the courts.

Further, the political question doctrine is not and has never been the president gets to do whatever he wants doctrine . It has two sides, not one. If this particular law is found to be a political question (which it isn't in this case, the court was clear that the courts could rule), that should mean that other political actors (like state governors) can also act on political facts - for example, by issuing counter-claiming orders, with the courts sitting out and letting the conflict be resolved via political actors. That's clearly a bad thing.

[Riva]

What the 9th circuit says is hardly compelling even if the correct result happened to be reached here. And a political question means the courts don't get to impose their views. The matter is something to be settled between the political branches.

[OpinionsVary]

"And a political question means the courts don't get to impose their views. The matter is something to be settled between the political branches."

I am aware. And my case is that if they court did find that whether the criteria to call the National Guard into federal service was, in effect, a political question that courts couldn't review (which it did not), then that is a two edged sword. If the political state governor issued countermanding orders, the President would be unable to obtain a court order directing either the state governor to rescind those orders nor for the National Guard to obey. It would be for the political branches to sort out among themselves.

Since this is clearly a horrible position to put the National Guard in, having courts rule on the matter is clearly preferable.

[Riva]

Preferable if one doesn't care about the constitution or national security. It's the national security thing in the short term that gets people killed. The disregard of the constitution is more of a long term harm.

[OpinionsVary]

How can it be against the US constitution? The US constitution gives the power to provide for the calling up of the national guard to Congress, not the president. If the president can call up the national guard for any reason - ignoring the conditions set out by Congress as the administration's lawyers argued - haven't you rendered that part of the US constitution dead letter? Doesn't seem very constitutional to render the US constitution dead letter.

[Riva]

Because the court has no art. III authority here to review the president's decision to call out the National Guard. The president, the commander in chief under the Constitution, is the sole and exclusive authority here under the law. This was settled long ago in Martin v Matt.

[SRG2]

A district court judge had no business substituting his policy views over the president. But that seems to be all the rage in federal judicial circles these days.

What if a president's policy view conflicts with the Constitution? Or do you adopt the view so apparent with cultists in general, that Trump's wishes override the Constitution?

[Joe_dallas]

Tells us when you condemn bidens actions that violated the constitution?

[SRG2]

"But Biden...!"

Why are you lot so cretinously incapable of addressing a point on its own merits?

You may rightly accuse someone of hypocrisy for not criticising President A for conduct they criticise president B for, but that does not address the actual point, which is B's conduct.

But it seems that understanding this is beyond your feeble intellectual capabilities.

FWIW I don't recall doing much criticism of Biden;s constitutional overreach - but I did not criticise court rulings that went against him, nor did he engage in wholesale breaches of the Constitution.

Now why don't you address the actual question?

[Sarcastr0]

I leave it to SRG2 to answer, but I'd guess he can (student loans was ultra vires IMO).

You, though, have never done anything but defend Trump to the hilt. Mostly via But Biden, though. I dunno if I've seen you make the populism justifies the means argument so many on here use.

[Riva]

When it is a matter not susceptible of judicial review, it is the court that is showing disregard to the constitution, not the president. A court respects the constitution by recognizing the proper limits of its authority.

[SRG2]

When it is a matter not susceptible of judicial review

Who decides that? Answer: the courts, necessarily. And they do indeed on occasion so rule. Who must never decide that - the Executive, because that way lies tyranny.

[Kazinski]

But Martin v Mott settled that question 2 centuries ago, Joseph Story wrote the decision for the Marshall court.

"Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 19 (1827) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the president of the United States’ emergency powers and the authority to activate state militias for federal service."

Breyer dismissed the case out of hand as no longer applicable, or some other handwaving. When California's Lawyer tried to do the same in oral arguments the judge reminded him what the Supreme Court has said on that subject: 'apply the precedent as the court has decided, if its no longer good law, its up to us not you to make that determination.'

That pretty much settled the case and made it clear Breyer doesn't have the authority to substitute his judgement for the President's.

[Sarcastr0]

That was about a different law than now. It might be useful as to what level of delegation Congress can make, but it's not a useful case as to what kind of structure Congress has currently made.

[Kazinski]

Lets go to the Opinion to see what they say about the current law:

"We now grant the stay. Defendants have made the required strong showing
that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. We disagree with Defendants’ primary argument that the President’s decision to federalize members
of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 is completely insulated
from judicial review. Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under longstanding
precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor to § 12406, our review of that
decision must be highly deferential. Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under § 12406(3), which authorizes federalization of the National Guard when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
Additionally, the Secretary of Defense’s transmittal of the order to the Adjutant
General of the California National Guard—who is authorized under California law to “issue all orders in the name of the Governor,” CAL. MIL. & VET. CODE § 163—likely satisfied the statute’s procedural requirement that federalization orders be issued “through” the Governor. And even if there were a procedural violation, that
would not justify the scope of relief provided by the district court’s TRO. Our
conclusion that it is likely that the President’s order federalizing members of the California National Guard was authorized under § 12406(3) also resolves the Tenth
Amendment claim because the parties agree that the Tenth Amendment claim turns on the statutory claim."

[Sarcastr0]

So much for your Supreme Court precedent, then.

I don't find it at all obvious that the Adjutant
General of the California National Guard gets to count as the governor for this purpose.

[Joe_dallas]

https://nypost.com/2025/06/18/opinion/fbi-emails-revealed-to-the-post-expose-biden-dojs-obsession-with-piling-on-trump-charges/

[Sarcastr0]

NY Post.
Opinion.

[SRG2]

You must believe that John Gotti was an innocent man persecuted by the government. That's the only explanation for all the lawfare against him, right?

[Joe_dallas]

CA9 rules in favor of trump and the call up of the NG to quell LA riots

of course there would have been no need to call up the NG if newsom and bass had acted responsibly.

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/

[Kazinski]

The Constitution says Congress has the power to make a provision for calling the national, they provided a statute for the President to call the national guard into service. So while Congress can make conditions on calling the National Guard into service, because the president shall execute the laws, and is also commander in chief it was always envisioned that the President would do all the calling, while Congress would do the providing.

[Sarcastr0]

it was always envisioned

This comment includes about the usual level of scholarship that goes into this kind of statement.

[Kazinski]

About par for the course for a comment in a blog.

If I were explaining why a unanimous 3 judge panel was wrong, then maybe I should provide a little more support, but they were right, and I was agreeing with them, and while I haven't read the decision yet, I did listen to the oral arguments.

And if you want more support for that statement their opinion is available to you.

[Sarcastr0]

So it was cheerleading disguised as originalism.

Well, how useless.

[bye]

The overwhelming number of citizens already KNOW this.
Bass failed, Newsom failed, so it is up to 'the buck stops here' President to do his job and he did

[loki13]

You know, I was going to say that whatever one want to say, positive or negative, about the current President .... the one thing, the ONLY THING, that everyone seems to agree on is that President Trump is not take a Truman-esque "The Buck Stops Here," approach! We can agree on that much at least, right?

But then I realized that you might be talking about ... well, actual bucks. Dollars.

And I thought ... huh, well played, I guess?

[tylertusta]

So much for that benchslap, eh?

[loki13]

"Progtard" Really? That's where you're at?

Look, I posted this elsewhere, but if you're not a partisan tool you should really read actual opinions (or know the law) before running and posting the "PWN" posts based on coverage.

Yes, this was an important opinion. But it was only (ONLY) the opinion regarding a STAY PENDING APPEAL. In other words, all that was actually decided was that ... the lower court's decision would be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Appellate motion practice, not a decision on the merits.

The appeal continues. And the most important finding (IMO) was that the 9th Circuit Panel rejected the Administration's claim that the case was unreviewable- that this decision is entirely discretionary.

Now, if you read the text of the opinion, the actual findings are limited and assuming certain standards of review. I would say that it looks good for the Administration (and really good on some procedural issues!) right now, but ... I wouldn't be celebrating until the final opinion is released. Because that's when the rubber hits the road. Anyone (and I include Prof. Somin here) who thought that the courts would enjoin the administration on this without going through a full process ... well, that seemed like wishful thinking.

Finally, I will remind everyone ... for the little good that it will do ... ISSUES OF LAW ARE NOT PARTISAN. If you assume that powers and parties come and go, try and examine the principles, not just the "SCOREBOARD" result.

So on this- look at the legal issues. If you think that all Presidents should have unfettered discretion to federalize the national guard and send in the military into a state over the objections of the governor of the state and locality, that's cool. If you don't, that's cool- but what is the basis, and what standards do courts apply (procedural and substantive).

Anyway ... progtard? This is why I don't come here very often.

[loki13]

"So on this- look at the legal issues. If you think that all Presidents should have unfettered discretion to federalize the national guard and send in the military"

Too late to edit- to be clear, the only legal issue in this case and appeal is the national guard.

[Joe_dallas]

Appears trump did have the authority from the governor of CA

"Defendants’ actions likely met the procedural requirement because the federalization order was issued through an agent of the Governor in the Governor’s name. Under California law, the Adjutant General “is chief of staff to the Governor, subordinate only to the Governor and is the commander of all state military forces.” CAL. MIL. & VET. CODE § 160. The Adjutant General’s duties include “issu[ing] all orders in the name of the Governor.” Id. § 163. Plaintiffs do not dispute that California’s Adjutant General received the memoranda from the Secretary of Defense, relinquished command to the federal military accordingly, and forwarded the memoranda to Governor Newsom. Although Governor Newsom did not personally issue the order relinquishing state command, § 12406 requires that the President’s order be issued through the Governor, not directly by the Governor."

[loki13]

????

I've seen your other posts Joe. You're not doing great.

Anyway, I suggest actually reading what I wrote above, and then asking yourself if you needed to respond with this (or anything) to what I wrote. Thanks.

[Kazinski]

Not unfettered, almost unfettered:

"Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor to § 12406, our review of that decision must be highly deferential."

[Martinned]

In technology news:

Honda successfully launched and landed its own reusable rocket
The rocket flew for almost a full minute and reached an altitude of 890 feet before landing within 14 inches of its target.

[Mr. Bumble]

To boldly go.....

[Commenter_XY]

Since the election, there has been much discussion about lawfare, the record number of TROs, injunctions issued by Federal Dist Ct judges (mostly from MD, CA, DC), and the prospect of 'Judicial Insurrection'. My own thought is that it is partly hyperbole, but brings to mind some questions.

One, is a judicial insurrection even theoretically possible?
Two, what would a judicial insurrection actually look like?
Two-A, is there a historical example of a judicial insurrection?
Three, what is the end result of a judicial insurrection?

I am most interested in 2 and 2A.

[Martinned]

It turns out that not everyone is willing to put up with Trump spouting self-aggrandising nonsense. Unsurprisingly, the cowardly US press reports this as "opinions vary about the shape of the earth".

Trump and India’s Modi split over U.S. role in Pakistan ceasefire

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi used his first conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump since the early May conflict between India and Pakistan to express his frustration with Trump’s repeated claims that he played a significant role in brokering a ceasefire between the two nuclear-armed countries.

“Prime Minister Modi firmly stated that India does not and will never accept mediation. There is complete political consensus in India on this matter,” Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said in a statement.

During a Tuesday phone call between the two leaders, Modi “clearly conveyed” to Trump that the U.S. played no role in the mediation between India and Pakistan and denied any discussion of a trade deal, said Misri.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/18/modi-trump-india-pakistan-ceasefire.html

[Riva]

Are you on the bureaucratic clock when you post all these comments? How much does that pay, per hour of posting nonsense? Are you also using state supplied equipment? Just curious what taxpayers are subsidizing here.

Of course, that’s assuming you’re honest about your work. Who knows? A lot of BSers here, most just claim to be legal professionals, but they write like HS sophomores.

[Martinned]

Perhaps the most facepalm news of all in DC this week: Some Democratic senators regret voting to confirm Kristi Noem as DHS secretary

Why would any Democratic senator ever vote for a Trump nominee for office? Even leaving to one side that the man is a dangerous lunatic, and that anyone willing to serve in his administration on no account should be allowed to do so, don't they get that they are the opposition? It's not their job to help Trump implement his agenda. He should either do it without them or, if he needs their votes for some reason, he should come and make a bargain. I hear that's his specialty. Why give Trump your vote for free??

[Mr. Bumble]

" It's not their job to help Trump implement his agenda."
Seems like that agenda is what got him elected to the presidency twice (three times?).

[Martinned]

So? What concern is that of the Senators? They got elected too, and usually with much bigger majorities than Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

And most want to keep getting elected, Duh

[Bob from Ohio]

"What concern is that of the Senators? "

Because going against a president of your own party who is very popular within that party is bad for their careers.

You might try learning something about US politics before you comment.

[CountmontyC]

As a general rule presidents get their nominees unless there is something disqualifying about the nominee. And simply being a Trump nominee is not automatically disqualifying

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well...

[Frank Drackman]

Neither was a man wearing a dress or stealing women’s underwear from their luggage

[bye]

Here is Biden with the pride of his administration recruits
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/sam-brinton-comp.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1200

[Martinned]

That's exactly my question: Why on earth does that "general rule" exist?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because the nominees are working for the President, not the Senate?

[Martinned]

1. No, they don't work for the President, they work for the American people.

2. It's the Senate's job to advise and consent. That suggests a fair amount of independent scrutiny of the nominees. Senators have a constitutional duty to vote against the nomination of someone they wouldn't want to see appointed. Signing off on all nominees no matter how crazy they are is the opposite of that.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm pretty sure that, in the executive branch, only the President and VP are elected by the American people, and the other employees are there to work for him in carrying out his duties.

And particularly true of the cabinet, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

That is not in the text, and is not how early cabinet members acted.

Now, I think there are legit questions about how much to weigh policy versus ideology versus competency.
But it's just false to declare policy is formally off limits based on some original notion they were not independent actors.

[CountmontyC]

Because without it the government would come to a standstill. The executive branch has duties to perform and the POTUS acts through his cabinet.
Yes the Senate could block his nominees because they disagree with the policies that they represent but that would be true of any POTUS of any party and after a couple decades of POTUSs only being able to run things directly things would probably be quite a mess.

[Martinned]

the Senate could block his nominees because they disagree with the policies that they represent

That, for the record, is a different approach than what I was talking about. But sure, that would be fine with me too. It's what the Senate does with Supreme Court nominees, after all.

If the President wants Democrats to vote for his nominees (which, of course, Trump at the moment neither wants nor needs) he should nominate people those Democrats can vote for, or negotiate a quid pro quo of some sort.

None of that would bring government to a standstill. There are acting office holders who keep the place running, and unless the President's party has a lot less than 50 seats in the Senate, in practice it's only a few Senators he'd have to persuade.

At a time when the Democrats are in the minority in the Senate, I see no reason why a single one of them should ever vote for one of Trump's nominees, unless Trump nominates Obama or Josh Blackman for office of course.

[CountmontyC]

The POTUS us in charge of the executive branch and will one way or another decide policy for the executive branch. It is easier and more orderly to run it through department heads but if he is denied those department heads he will do it directly. Tell me would you hold a Democrat POTUS to the same standard? Or would you argue Biden won so he gets his nominees barring something egregious in their record? I would like to remind you that there is no "but Trump" exception to the rules. Either every POTUS has a general right to their nominees or none do. Anything else is pure bull schit.

[bye]

He is President, you are a lazy sod sipping some expensive drink while posting shit from your expensive computer. We all see it. Lecturing 80 million voters with a straight face 🙂

[Magister]

The only president to receive 80 million votes was Joe Biden.

[John F. Carr]

It's their job to keep the Cabinet on the saner end of the spectrum Trump is prepared to nominate. Reject Gaetz and accept Bondi.

Trump could terminate a series of interim agency heads until he finds one who will follow orders.

[Martinned]

The Israel-Iran conflict is still succeeding in achieving its primary objective of distracting the world from Israel's treatment of the Palestiniains.

At least 12 Palestinians killed waiting for aid in Gaza, say medics

At least 12 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces while waiting for aid in central Gaza, according to rescuers and medics.

Reports say the group was killed by gunfire near an aid distribution site run by the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) on Thursday.

The GHF denied there were any incidents near its site. The Israeli military told Reuters that "suspects" had attempted to approach forces in the area of Netzarim, and that soldiers had fired warning shots. It said it was unaware of any injuries.

The incident is the latest in almost daily shootings near such aid sites in Gaza.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0ep17gyzrzo

Even leaving to one side the question of why the IDF keeps shooting at civilians, one has to wonder whether GHF is intentionally incompetent or unintentionally so. Normally I'm a big fan of Hanlon's razor, but at some point a continuing incompetence really does leave no other conclusion than that the actual outcome is the intended outcome. Normal aid agencies long ago learned that the most effective way to hand out aid is to do so in the most decentralised way possible. Lots of small distribution points. So why would the GHF do the opposite of that, other than because they want to make the people waiting sitting ducks for gunfire?

[Commenter_XY]

The people of gaza broadly support hamas, a Judeocidal teror group, so I have little sympathy. hamas can end the war today by releasing the hostages, and surrendering.

[Martinned]

So you're advocating a death penalty for having opinions you disapprove of?

[Commenter_XY]

No, I advocate the utter defeat and destruction of Judeocidal terror groups and their supporters.

[Martinned]

That's the same thing. You're killing people because of who they "support". Support is an opinion.

(Leaving to one side the evidence-free nature of what you said.)

[bye]

Martin, you would have supported Hitler and we all know you would have.

[John F. Carr]

Support has two meanings. It can be a yellow ribbon on the back of an SUV, or it can be what federal law calls "material support."

[Frank Drackman]

Certain ones yes

[Riva]

Yeah, your “news” reports are not exactly reliable, just so you know. That means stories of Israeli mistreatment are likely just more Hamas sourced lies. They always are.

[CountmontyC]

Remember the last time that there were reports of IDF firing on Gaza civilians trying to reach food aid? Videos proved that a lie and Hamas later hunted down those Gaza civilians for daring to accept that aid instead of letting Hamas steal it.

[Martinned]

Yes, "proved", definitely.

[Joe_dallas]

Countmonty
You need to excuse martin - he touts the credibility of the BBC, along with the inability to sift through bias vs outright lies

[Joe_dallas]

The BBC -
Long history of "credible unbiased " articles on Israel

Not!

[Martinned]

I'm sorry that sad sacks like you think any news reporting that is inconsistent with your priors is "biased". That is why we can't have nice things.

[Joe_dallas]

BBC hasnt reported accurately on Israel in decades.

[Bob from Ohio]

"say medics
according to rescuers and medics.
Reports say"

Seems 100% solid. Lots of on record quotes from unbiased sources.

Some people will believe anything.

[Martinned]

I've long said (on this blog and elsewhere) that former presidents who are young when they leave office shouldn't be so cautious about speaking out. I think Obama should have run to win his old senate seat back. His life's work wasn't finished when he left office.

Instead, we get weird cagey remarks every couple of months. Here is the transcript of what he said at an event in Hartford on Tuesday: https://barackobama.medium.com/conversation-at-the-connecticut-forum-e5e168e08ba8

He literally doesn't mention Trump's name once. Instead we get this:

Now things are a little different. Your commitments are being tested, not the way Nelson Mandela’s commitments were tested where you go to jail for 27 years, you might lose some of your donors if you’re a university. If you’re a law firm, your billings might drop a little bit, which means you cannot remodel that kitchen in your house in the Hamptons this summer.

If you’re a business, and this has happened because I’ve been getting calls about it. Yes, you may be threatened by an administration that says we won’t approve a merger, or we will launch an investigation of you, and we will make you uncomfortable. Part of what all this tariff stuff is about, by the way. — (Laughter.) Because it’s such poorly thought-out economics, so you kind of wonder, well, why would you do something that’s just not well thought out?

I mean, you can apply tariffs. There’s a place for tariffs to help open up markets and leverage. The United States sometimes gets taken advantage of because we’ve been the biggest market. China in particular, as it came up, started taking advantage of the rules. My administration applied tariffs as well occasionally to counteract these bad practices, but that’s not what’s going on now.

What’s going on now is that tariffs mean everybody has to come to you for favor. You apply blanket tariffs around the world, now suddenly, Vietnam’s got to negotiate tariffs. Oh, would it be helpful in terms of lowering tariffs if maybe we approved a golf course for a certain business? All right. Let’s discuss that. What’s happening is that we now have a situation in which all of us are going to be tested in some way, and we are going to have to then decide what our commitments are.

It will be uncomfortable for a time, but that’s how you know it’s a commitment because you do it when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy, not just when it’s trendy, not just when it’s cool. Sometimes I feel as if during my presidency, I think a lot of people felt comfortable in their righteousness because they didn’t have to test it. Now you have to test it a little bit more.

[Mr. Bumble]

He's too busy living la dolce vita to be bothered.

[Martinned]

Some presidents do that *while* they are president...

[Frank Drackman]

Doesn’t sound as stupid with all the “Uhs” and “Uhhh……” edited out

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, most people don't speak like passages in a book. Normally we just subconsciously edit out all the random grunts.

[not guilty]

Kudos to the most recent President who can speak in complete, coherent paragraphs that we have had.

[Mr. Bumble]

You've mistaken reading for speaking. (see Drackman above)

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump reads speeches well too.

[bye]

YOu see he's cagey and didn't do what you think he should have done, yet you still go on spouting your nonsense. The man is blustery fool and the country sees it. He gave Biden the foothold to become the stupidest world leader in modern history

[SRG2]

the stupidest world leader in modern history

Trump: "Hold my beer. This is the best beer, many people have told me"

[Bob from Ohio]

"His life's work wasn't finished when he left office."

LOL Its sure was, becoming rich and famous was his life's work.

[Martinned]

A California state senator is trying to figure out who exactly was trying to get into Dodgers stadium:

Just some creepy armed Mad Max guys trying to gain entry to Dodgers Stadium.

ICE says it wasn’t them. DHS says they were Border Patrol. But honestly who the hell knows? They’ve given permission for any psycho to put on a ski mask, point a gun, grab people & throw them into an unmarked vehicle.

https://bsky.app/profile/scottwiener.bsky.social/post/3lryj2pvcy22u

[bye]

See that's what people dislike about you : " They’ve given permission for any psycho to..." just shit you like to say. No referent for 'they' , no identityh for those alleged psychos...people laugh at you

[Frank Drackman]

They probably just wanted some Dodger Dogs(same Farmer John ones you can get at the store but taste better at the game)

[Armchair]

Ethical question.

A 13 year old girl goes to the doctor, emotionally distraught. She is very concerned over the state of the environment, and is concerned that there are too many humans for the planet to support. She asks for the doctor to sterilize her, to ensure she can't have children. The girls parents support this decision, as they consider her potentially suicidal over this issue. They believe that sterilization of the child will help her mental state.

1. Should the doctor perform the procedure?
2. Can the doctor ethically refuse to perform the procedure?
3. Can the state ethically mandate doctors perform such procedures? Or ban such procedures under these conditions from occurring?

[bye]

She must have been thinking of kids outside of marriage. Now we know that hurts children and families more than many other things. So I would prescribe some pills for her stupidity.

Even the liberal Brookings Institution could be a character witness.

They have said :

"Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families. If we have learned any policy lesson well over the past 25 years, it is that for children living in single-parent homes, the odds of living in poverty are great. The policy implications of the increase in out-of-wedlock births are staggering."

So, parents should be whipped, child should go to bed without desert, and the teachers who didn't spot the useless parents should be put on leave.

AND YOU SHOULD FIND SOMETHING USEFUL TO DO WITH YOUR TIME.

[Sarcastr0]

As usual, your JAQing off is not very clever.

[Armchair]

Since you refuse to answer, the truth is apparent.

[Sarcastr0]

And there's the shallow endgame of JAQing off.

[Joe_dallas]

A crude and immature comment - though not unexpected.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think you even know what JAQing off mean.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What's wrong with John Quincy Adams?

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don't think you even know what JAQing off mean."

He's not 16 so why should he?

Had to look it up, it is in fact a crude and immature comment.

"JAQing Off is a play on words which blends the acronym JAQ with the slang term jacking off, i.e. masturbation." wikipedia footnote

[Sarcastr0]

You're close. And have no standing to talk about maturity.

Anyhow, JAQ stands for...exactly what Armchair was doing.

[Joe_dallas]

gaslight prefers to be an immature prick instead of engaging in the substantive issues.

And No - Gaslight didnt use the term in a manner consistent with the urban dictionary definition

[not guilty]

"Can the state ethically mandate doctors perform such procedures? Or ban such procedures under these conditions from occurring?"

I don't know about the ethics, but the state's police power is legally sufficient to mandate sterilization. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), has never been overruled. And the antecedent, slavish devotion to the state's arbitrary exercise of power remains in place, as evidenced by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).

[William of Brooklyn]

So, while I support abortion rights, I still se an immense logical and legal distinction between the State forbidding vs allowing vs compelling certain acts to be performed. Forced sterilization (à la Chine) is very different than saying that no one may sterilize another person. And yes, Buck v Bell needs to be overruled.

[not guilty]

Some things, such as who does or does not reproduce, are simply none of the government's freaking business. "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972).

[William of Brooklyn]

Not Guilty -- So, you saw my first sentence, right? The right of an individual to an abortion does NOT mean that the State cannot regulate medical procedures, nor does it mean that it must provide for those procedures. And because abortion may be a right we (as a polity) may agree on, it does not follow that all forms of medical procedures are then also allowable. Here, in Skrmetti, we have the State making a judgment about whether certain procedures can be administered to minors. And that judgment is that such procedures are so profound and irreversible in their effect that even with parental consent, minors are not in a position to give their own consent. Since they can't vote, consent to sex, or even drink a beer yet, that age restriction by the State seems well supported.

[hobie]

1. Should the doctor perform the procedure?
Sure. Women get their tubes tied all the time. And it's reversible

2. Can the doctor ethically refuse to perform the procedure?
Sure. Professionals refuse to do things every single minute of every day regardless if it is for ethical reasons or not. The girl will need to shop around, instead.

3. Can the state ethically mandate doctors perform such procedures? Or ban such procedures under these conditions from occurring?
Sure. Legislatures tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies all the time. Just had a SCOTUS ruling this week about this very thing

[Moderation4ever]

Many years ago I got a vasectomy. Before the surgery the doctor asked if I my wife approved, which she did. I asked if her approval made a difference and his reply was that he himself would not do the surgery if my wife and I were at odds over the procedure. So doctors can ethically refuse to do the procedure. I suspect if the parents approved they would go to a doctor that would perform the surgery. All in all it seems stupid as the young girl could be put on an implanted birth control device until she is old enough to make the decision as an adult. Kind of like putting a kid on a puberty blocker until they are an adult and can make decision on gender matters.

[William of Brooklyn]

I had exactly the same experience vis à vis vasectomy.

[Brett Bellmore]

"All in all it seems stupid as the young girl could be put on an implanted birth control device until she is old enough to make the decision as an adult. Kind of like putting a kid on a puberty blocker until they are an adult and can make decision on gender matters."

I certainly hope that's not like putting them on a puberty blocker until they're legally an adult.

Puberty blockers were determined to be safe based on experience in using them to delay precocious puberty until a normal age for puberty was reached. And they do appear to be safe when used that way.

But experience has now accumulated with the use of them to delay puberty beyond a normal time frame, and the results have NOT been good. Reduced bone density, (And subsequent osteoarthritis.) compromised sexual function and impaired fertility, and in particular, failure to resolve gender dysphoria.

Puberty blockers for gender dysphoric youth: A lack of sound science

Gender dysphoria almost always resolves by the end of puberty, but use of puberty delaying drugs to 'treat' that dysphoria almost always results in rendering it permanent. Might even wonder if that's the actual purpose of the treatment, it's such a reliable consequence...

I guess I should note that said dysphoria often resolves in the form of homosexuality, rather than heterosexuality. So you might say that the purpose of delaying puberty is to transform homosexuals into transgenders. Who will be much more demanding of expensive ongoing medical services... It's a win for the medical practitioner, anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

But experience has now accumulated with the use of them to delay puberty beyond a normal time frame, and the results have NOT been good.

Evidence has been equivocal, but you ignore all the evidence otherwise as biased.

I'm sure you can see the issue with your method here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Care to cite some "evidence otherwise" rather than just your douche opinion?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, I can Google:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9793415/

Though my main source is the British study everyone goes on about, which cites studies on all sides of the issue, and doesn't find concrete evidence of harm, just lack of sufficient evidence of benefit.

I tend to agree with that study, BTW, and think until better studies come out it's fine to ban puberty blockers if states want.

Now, make all your comments substantive questions like that and you will be a net benefit to this blog.

[hobie]

I think for Brett, bodily autonomy only extends to masks, and vaccines, various other perceived seizures and most other body parts.

But sex organs seem to be a particular preoccupation with MAGA. That's where the physician group called the legislature has full and condoned power to seize

[Sarcastr0]

Masks and vaccines effected him.

Sex organ stuff that doesn't effect him, he still has opinions about but very much on the other side of state intervention.

Bind the outgroup, protect the Brettgroup.

[not guilty]

"I guess I should note that said dysphoria often resolves in the form of homosexuality, rather than heterosexuality. So you might say that the purpose of delaying puberty is to transform homosexuals into transgenders. Who will be much more demanding of expensive ongoing medical services... It's a win for the medical practitioner, anyway."

Supporting evidence, Brett? Or are you once again getting your information from that noted authority, Otto Yourazz?

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course there is this from someone who's been there:
Chloe Cole, a victim of the transgender cult who has detransitioned and become an outspoken critic of the medicalization of gender-confused youth, delivered a withering response.

Cole’s story is a stark reminder of what’s actually at stake. She was put on puberty blockers and testosterone injections at just 13, and by 15, she’d undergone a double mastectomy. Now, as a young adult, she’s left to deal with the permanent scars—both physical and emotional—of decisions she was in no position to make. “Absolutely no child should ever be given the chance to go through any of this because it is abusive, it’s detrimental to their development, and they deserve better,” Cole stated. Her testimony exposes the ugly reality behind the sanitized language of “gender-affirming care.” This isn’t compassionate medicine; it’s irreversible harm inflicted on vulnerable kids.

[Sarcastr0]

Anecdotes, especially from someone with a financial stake in telling a particular story, are not useful information.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly an anecdote.

[Brett Bellmore]

And my point is that the medical professionals running the trans factories very much have a financial stake in telling a particular story.

[ReaderY]

The 9th Circuit today found in favor of the administration in Newsome v. Trump, holding that California is not entitled to an injunction because President Trump lawfully federalized the California national guard.

I find myself compelled to agree with the judgment, although on completely different grounds.

On the merits, my main disagreement with the 9th Circuit is its characterization of 10 USC Sec 12406’s requirement that orders be issued through the state’s governor as a mere “procedural” requirement. I disagree. The provision is an amendment added in 1908, long after Martin was decided. It was added in no small part to support Southern segregation by limiting the circumstances under which troops could be called in to enforce federal law. And its existence explains why Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act, which does not require the governor’s consent.

The 9th Circuit cited no source, no context, conducted no research or scholarship, in simply asserting that this requirement is a mere procedural and non-essential one rather than a substantive limit on the President’s authority. I think that view is simply wrong.

Like the Posse Comitatus Act, the provision was an intentional Congressional limitation on the President’s authority to act, enacted as part of Congress’ decision to end Reconstruction and sharply limit the President’s effective ability to enforce remaining civil rights laws from the Reconstructionist era. But notwithstanding its pedigree, it is on the books. And liberal California is entitled to its benefits.

That said, I think that California made a fundamental blunder by citing only harms that I think are non-justiciable political and policy questions, such as whether to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles is more beneficial or more harmful than leaving them in reserve for a possible forest fire, or whhether deploying them is likely to quell or inflame the situation in Los Angeles. I see these as quintessentially non-justiciable questions, questions of values, beliefs about the future, and judgment rather than matters that can be ascertained by processes available to the law. Similarly with its claims regarding the public interest. Only the political branches can determine the public interest on matters like these.

Because California asserted only non-justiciable claims of harm, I think it failed to satisfy the harm requirement for obtaining a TRO. But I would have said simply that California failed to meet its burden in that its claimed harms are speculative and matters for political policy rather than judicial judgment. I would not, as the 9th Circuit did, have weighed in the other way and ruled that the balance of harms favored the defendants.

So while I completely disagree with a good part of the 9th Circuit’s reasoning, I find myself constrained to agree with its judgment. I agree the TRO is a de facto preliminary injunction and appealable. I think California should win on the merits because, while I agree with the 9th Circuit’s view regarding strong but not absolute deference to the President’s judgment, I think the statute requires the state governor’s active participation, which as I see it necessarily requires his consent, making it a matter of substance rather than mere process. But because California failed to make justiciable claims regarding harm and public interest, I agree it should lose on its TRO request.

[ReaderY]

As I mentioned in a comment on a previous post, Presidential takeover of a State’s militia without Congressional authority affronts the state’s sovereignty, just as federal takeover of its legislature or courts would. And I see this as a perfectly justiciable harm that could support a restraining order or injunction. Similarly, maintaining Congressional control over the President’s actions when the Constitution gives Congress and not the President the power to decide is in the public interest, and this issue is also completely justiciable.

But while California included the affront to its sovereignty in its complaint in explaining why California as a state had standing, it failed to assert it as a harm in its motion for a TRO. I see that as a lawyering blunder. However, because both the District Court and the 9th Circuit found the harms it did assert justiciable, my view so far has not mattered. I still think not asserting this harm was a mistake as it would have been easy to assert it and the case could potentially have turned on it.

[Joe_dallas]

ReaderY 46 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"As I mentioned in a comment on a previous post, Presidential takeover of a State’s militia without Congressional authority affronts the state’s sovereignty,"

That would have been a valid point if newsom, bass et al had not foresaken their duties. Seems no one condemning trump to calling of the NG is will to condemn bass or newsom for their irresponsible behavior

[ReaderY]

The 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from coopting state officials for their purposes. Under our constitutional system, it’s not for the federal government to decide what a state’s duties are.

The Constitution lets Congress, and not the President, federalize a state’s militia. Congress delegated the decision to the President. But it imposed conditions, including (as I read the statute) a requirement to proceed only with the involvement of the state’s governor. The President can’t bypass those conditions simply because he disagrees with a governor’s decision not to become involved.

[Joe_dallas]

A CA9 just said otherwise

B - newsom shirked his responsibilities.

C - Why no condemnation of newsom's actions

[ReaderY]

A. The 9th Circuit said no such thing. It simply said Governor Newsom’s signature wasn’t required because the President could get some other California official to sign it.

B. The Constitution requires the bills passed by Congress have to go through the President before they become law. Is a President shirking his duties if he fails to sign it? If the President shirks his duty and refuses, can Congress satisfy the technicsl procedural requirement of having bills go through the President by getting other official able to act on the President’s behalf, such as the Vice President, to sign it?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is a President shirking his duties if he fails to sign it?"

Its not a "duty", its a discretionary power. If he "refuses" to sign [and does not veto] then it still becomes law after 10 days.

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't see that the 10th Amendment has any application here.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution grants Congress the power

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So the 10th Amendment is a dead-letter argument. The power was delegated to Congress. Which passed legislation.

The only question is a statutory one: did the president fulfill the conditions that Congress passed. The 9th Circuit just ruled he did. In this case.

[Joe_dallas]

worth noting how few of the leftists are condemning newsom's actions

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Which actions do you mean?

[Joe_dallas]

excuse me - newsom's lack of actions

[ReaderY]

I was commenting on the claim “Newsome shirked his responsibilities.” The 9th Circuit did not address that claim.

Because enforcing federal law is not a state responsibility, a state official has no duty. With no duty, there is no responsibility to shirk.

If you read my comments above, you’ll see my view is the legislation Congress passed required the participation on the State’s governor to effect federalization of a state’s militia under 10 USC 12406. Far from intending to impose a duty on a state’s governor, Congress instead chose to give the governor a veto power.

[Joe_dallas]

ReaderY 26 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I was commenting on the claim “Newsome shirked his responsibilities.” The 9th Circuit did not address that claim.

Correct - though the need to call the NG was indirectly related to newsom shirking his responsibilities

[Brett Bellmore]

Which is why Trump should have used the insurrection act, instead, which bypasses the state government for obvious reasons.

[Joe_dallas]

Agreed Trump used the wrong statute, though he was correct in Calling up the NG due to the actions / non actions of newsom.

Though lets not condemn newsom!

[William of Brooklyn]

I completely agree with the portion of your argument that cites the many elements that are non-justiciable. And I think the judgment of the 9th is correct. And I also agree that it was determined on the wrong basis. But I would have wished the 9th to hold that the statute's role for the Governor exceeded Congress's authority. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to "provide for calling forth the Militia" but once that happens, by express Act of Congress or other means, the president "shall be Commander in Chief...of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..." There is no role there for the Governor, or indeed any arm of the States. That is the whole point. That's what allowed Lincoln to call them into service, and Jackson to threaten his own Vice-President with hanging, and Eisenhower and Johnson to use them (with no governor being involved). Any other result in this case would have been both absurd and antithetical to the Constitution's design.

[ReaderY]

I think its expressly permitted by the Constitution. The subclause of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause expressly requires the consent of the state government in order for it to be constitutionally permissable for the federal government to call forth a state’s militia to protect it from domestic violence.

I acknowledge that the Article I militia clause, which authorizes Congress to provide for calling forth the militia to enforce federal law, contains no such requirement. The subclause of the Guarantee Clause regarding invasion doesn’t either.

Here Congress, in its wisdom, chose to enact a single statute, with one set of criteria, that covers all three purposes. Requiring the governor’s consent is not just constitutionally permissable but constitutionally mandated for the domestic violence component. And since the Constitution leaves it up to Congress to decide under what conditions the militia should be called up to enforce federal law, it’s perfectly within their call to require the state governor’s consent for that as well, good policy or not.

Even assuming you are right that once federalized the governor is constitutionally out of the picture under thr Commander-In-Chief clause, they don’t become federalized until the initial order calling them up. Statutory provisions shoild be construed to be constitutional where possible, and courts should avoid unnecessary constitutional questions. So as I see it, limiting California’s claim to just not getting Governor Newsome’s consent to the initial order calling them to federal service would completely avoid your onjection, and would enable the courts to resolve the case without deciding anything about what happens afterwards, leaving the question of what happens if a governor consents to having militia called up but wants to micromanage individual orders to another day.

[tylertusta]

Requiring the governor’s consent is not just constitutionally permissable but constitutionally mandated for the domestic violence component.

How so? Doesn't the Constitution expressly allow the calling forth of the militia to suppress insurrections in addition to executing federal law?

[ReaderY]

Here we have yet more proof of Upton Sinclair’s dictum, “It’s very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

[tylertusta]

I don't think a personal attack is doing you any favors, but you do you, bud.

[ReaderY]

Regarding Lincoln, there is a seperate statute, the Insurrection Act, covering things like rebellions and state violations of federal law, that doesn’t require the governor’s consent. Eisenhower invoked it in Little Rock for that reason. I believe Lincoln invoked its predecessor. But President Trump chose not to invoke it. I think there may have been a good reason for the choice not to do this. I don’t think there was an invasion or rebellion going on. (A rebellion is organized and armed. A simple protest by mostly unarmed people, even one with sporadic unorganized acts of violence by individual people, is not a rebellion) And the state itself was not violating federal law.

[Ridgeway]

I think you are reading the Insurrection Act to narrowly. Sect 332, for example says:

"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

So in order to federalize the National Guard, all he needs to claim is that an unlawful obstruction, combination or assemblage [of which large scale rioting is a good example] is making impracticable the enforcement of Federal law [of which immigration enforcement is a good example].

I do not know why they did not invoke this in addition to 12406.

[ReaderY]

Perhaps so. But whether President Trump could have invoked the Insurrection Act or not, he didn’t. So its terms, and arguments about them, have no relevance to this case.

[John F. Carr]

If California delegated the governor's power to an official who obeys Trump, which appears to be the case, I think that's good enough.

Sometimes federal law requires a high level official to personally make a decision. The default rule allows delegation.

[A Japanese Student]

With the upper house election scheduled in July, legislators in Japan are fighting over economic and tax policies. The ruling parties, including right-wing LDP, is pro-spending (proposing sending checks to every person); other parties, both to the left and right of LDP (yes, LDP is no longer the most conservative in Japan), have proposed various tax cuts (such as halving sales tax rate).

One of the controversy is the "temporary" part of the gasoline tax. Despite being "temporary" first (and once expiring in 2008) it has been made permanent in 2010. That amendment had a provision called "trigger clause" - if average retail gasoline price exceeded 160 yen per liter, the temporary part would be suspended. Then the trigger clause was made inoperable in 2011 to offset the enormous earthquake related spending.

On Wednesday, things have changed dramatically. Remember that the lower house is a minority government since last year - if the opposition parties united, they could send a bill to a trash can called House of Councillors. Given the ideological differences between the parties, nobody thought it will happen. It happened.

Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Xgn-yxRCM

[A Japanese Student]

Here's how things went that day.

Meeting starts at the 11 minute mark in the video. It starts by a member yelling "SPEAKER!" - a tradition of the House dating back to when microphone was a novelty. The member says he is submitting "Emergency Motion to Add to the Order", specifically, one that would discharge "Resolution Removing Chair of the Finance Committee" from the committee and proceed to immediate consideration.

After debate and one roll call vote, the resolution was agreed to, 237-221. The opposition parties united, and the LDP's chair was ousted. This is the first time in the postwar lower house's history that a committee chair was successfully removed.

Later that day, a CDP legislator was elected by the House to serve as the next chair. He immediately convened the committee.

Today, the committee passed the gasoline tax bill, and the House, before adjourning sine die (session ends Sunday), passed the bill as well. LDP did not filibuster it - it would be dead anyway. Or is it?

Apparently LDP agreed to discuss the bill on Saturday in the upper house (where they have majority), and vote on the floor. It will fail; LDP still is opposing. But the LDP must have thought that, whatever the course is, it will negatively affect the upcoming election. In that case some bipartisanship might be better than none.

One thing to note about the bill: it is effective July 1st. That part is definitely an absurd demand, especially considering that local government gets a share of the gasoline tax. A separate bill is necessary to compensate them for the loss of tax revenue.

[ThePublius]

No one cares. Isn't there a Japanese law blog?

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, now, some of us find it a bit interesting.

[Sarcastr0]

I, for one appreciate the policy and procedure questions from a different perspective.

And I like his always courteous and businesslike tone; I envy his equanimity.

[Moderation4ever]

Are ICE personnel law enforcement or a secret police. In the US police officers don't wear face masks, they have name tags, and they will identify themselves when asked. If ICE wants to be taken seriously they need to step up and act more like police than acting like secret police.

[ThePublius]

That would make sense if there weren't violent "protesters" interfering with their operations and targeting them and their families personally.

What don't you get about that?

[Sarcastr0]

1. OK then don't cry about protesters getting masked.

2. Are their families getting targeted personally?

[ThePublius]

I'm not crying about anything, you dope. I never said anything about protesters being masked. You have a nasty habit of ascribing things to people they never said or did, and also making up supposed quotes.

People can protest all they want. When they violently attack federal agents they become criminals. They need to be identified.

[Sarcastr0]

Well the right in general seems to think if you're a masked protester you're Antifa. Glad you're not one of those.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we seem to think that if you're a masked rioter you're Antifa. At least get your silly generalizations to make some sense, you're the one who thinks people who set cars on fire are protesting, not us.

[ThePublius]

"2. Are their families getting targeted personally?"

Yes. Just one example is a planned protest that marched to Tom Homan's house, in quite an intimidating way.

Why do you always reflexively resist, deny anything that doesn't fit your preferred narrative?

[Sarcastr0]

A moment's consideration will show you why your example isn't germane to what you are excusing.

[ThePublius]

What am I excusing?

[Magister]

So that protest would not have happened if Tom Homan had worn a mask?

[ReaderY]

Think of them as a secret police in training or in waiting, as being in a transitional phase. Trump is working more slowly and gradually then previous overthrowers of democracies did in places like Germany. So far the pace of the transition has been, comparatively, quite gradual. But note how ICE’s mandate is slowly expanding. Notice how they are moving from arresting immigrants to arresting people protesting them.

I don’t doubt that sooner or later - more likely sooner - they will be responsible for immigration in roughly the same way Congress is responsible for interstate commerce. I don’t doubt just about everything has some connection to immigration if one is willing to look at things at one remove. And I don’t doubt that sooner or later, things like Miranda rights etc. will be limited to purely non-immigration matters, defined with a scope much like purely intrastate commerce.

Hitler had a legal strategy for his approach . For example, the Weimar Republic had passed a law permitting citizens to request to be taken into custody for self-protection, analogous to the US witness protection program. There was a form to make this request. Hitler took full advantage of it. Every concentration camp inmate was made to sign this form, completely unchanged from its Weimar format, before admission. A gun to the head usually did the trick.

The Trump Administration has already started floating analogous legal strategems to keep people completely out of reach of the courts here in the US. The Trump Administration’s argument against class action habeas corpus was one such strategy. If courts can only respond to individual claims, then they can be rendered irrelevant by the simple expedient of preventing you from filing a claim, by e.g. disappearing you and keeping you incommunicado.

And setting up concentration camps outside US territory is directly analogous to what Hitler did. He had duly stripped Jews of citizenship with the 1935 Nuremburg Laws, making them aliens. He duly declared them enemy aliens when war broke out in 1939. And for the Final Solution in 1942, he took care to set up extermination camps in territory that was legally foreign, outside Germany proper even after annexations. So he simply used the German equivalent of the Alien Enemies Act to deport these enemy aliens outside Germany to places where German wasn’t legally responsible for them. All done nice and legal, every i carefully dotted, every t carefully crossed.

Trump’s strategem of placing concentration camps outside US territory and nominal US control, and his efforts to employ the Alien Enemies Act on a small-scale pilot basis as a sort of test run, is in many ways a very analogous legal strategy.

If’s worth noting that Hitler also tried things out on a small scale before going big time. The euthanasia program was a comparatively small-scale effort. Lessons from it were employed in constructing industrial-scale death camps. Trump is doing something similar. He is trying out strategies on a small scale that, if they prove successful, can eventually be vastly expanded.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, a long Hitler comparison. How original!

[Sarcastr0]

Hitler or no, that's not a list of things the leader of a free country should be doing.

[Bob from Ohio]

The "list" is mainly imaginary.

[ThePublius]

Dope. They are not arresting protesters. That's a lie. They are arresting people who are violently interfering with federal agents doing their duty.

Note that setting cars on fire and attacking ICE officers and offices is not protesting.

'Fiery, put mostly peaceful protest' - yea, right.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, violent "lunging" seems to be the new thing with these violent protesters...

[tylertusta]

It's funny watching leftists backpedal hard on what constitutes assault after what happened to the J6 rioters.

[tylertusta]

C_XY's comment didn't link to the 9th Circuit's per curiam decision that reversed Judge Breyer's TRO, so here it is:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/19/25-3727.pdf

The per curiam is like an anti-Breyer opinion in nearly every way that matters.

[Bob from Ohio]

"statute’s procedural requirement that federalization orders be issued “through” the Governor."

As you suggested. Well done.

[tylertusta]

Thank you, but I was just saying the obvious. Any layman could have read the statute and understood what it meant.

However, we have again seen the motivated reasoning of several highly educated, experienced lawyers that were emphatically trying to convince us that their shit doesn't stink.

[Commenter_XY]

It is pretty funny, actually = However, we have again seen the motivated reasoning of several highly educated, experienced lawyers that were emphatically trying to convince us that their shit doesn't stink.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Any layman could have read the statute and understood what it meant."

Heresy! Unclean!

Only the annointed can understand a statute.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is Washington state trying to kill EVs?
American got his Washington State Vehicle Registration Fee for a Tesla Model S

Just to register his car it’s $1,659.25

This is every year
Details at link.
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1935554701514494345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1935554701514494345%7Ctwgr%5E8a9bb1bd85db1429e71df5a9a7760d96041f1e95%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F727347%2F

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe it's a recognition that electric vehicles cause at least as much wear and tear on the roads as IC vehicles, but since road maintenance is generally paid for through fuel taxes, escape paying their fair share for it.

[ThePublius]

Since EVs are typically heavier than IC cars, they create more road damage, as road damage is directly proportional to vehicle weight.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Since EVs are typically heavier than IC cars, they create more road damage,”

My “at least” was in recognition of that,

“as road damage is directly proportional to vehicle weight.”

And as I recall reading, road damage is actually a 4th power function of load per axle, which is why one overloaded vehicle can cause more damage than a hundred regular ones.

So, a Telsa model 3 would be expected to produce 50% more road damage per mile driven than a comparable BMW 3 series, on account of just a few hundred extra pounds. It’s a LOT worse than proportional.

[Davedave]

Neither EV (cars) or ICE cars cause any significant amount of road damage, though. Essentially there's a minimum weight threshold below which no damage occurs. Almost all damage is from heavy goods vehicles and buses and so-on.

The exception to the above is where significant damage - like a pothole - already exists, when all traffic of any weight (so, not bicycles, perhaps) will exacerbate the damage. But that's much more complicated than just 'how much does it weigh', because wheel size and speed, among other things, are important.

[Davedave]

"since road maintenance is generally paid for through fuel taxes"

[citation needed]

It's generally an untrue statement as far as I am aware.

[John F. Carr]

In my state there are three taxes or fees all billed separately:

1. Flat rate registration fee, $30 per year for ordinary cars.
2. Ad valorem tax, 2.5% per year of the car's official value (less than fair market value for used cars).
3. Gas tax, 24 cents per gallon.

[ThePublius]

Sounds like Massachusetts. Howdy, neighbor!

And, in addition, 18.4¢ per gallon Federal tax on gasoline (24.4¢ for diesel).

[Estragon]

“[Juneteenth] reminds us of both the unimaginable injustice of slavery and the incomparable joy that must have attended emancipation. It is both a remembrance of a blight on our history and a celebration of our Nation’s unsurpassed ability to triumph over darkness.”

I enjoyed my day off and I hope others did as well, one way or another.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course you can never have too much of a good thing as New Jersey continues the celebration of Juneteenth today, because who (government employees) doesn't like a three or four day weekend.

[Estragon]

“because who (government employees) doesn't like a three or four day weekend”

Great question. Who doesn’t like a long weekend? You should check out the truth social responses to Trump’s statement yesterday.

[Estragon]

“Granger's astonishing words inspired soulful festivities and emotional rejoicing. Over the
years, as freedmen and freedwomen left Texas, they took Juneteenth and its meaning with
them. Today, we celebrate this historic moment in 1865, as we remember our Nation's
fundamental premise that all men and women are created equal.”

I take it your Juneteenth was not filled with soulful festivities. A pity. All should celebrate this day, as the quote above suggests

[Mr. Bumble]

Juneteenth is as real as Kwanza. Mine was a Thursday punctuated by extreme heat and humidity and multiple thunderstorms but otherwise just another day.

[Estragon]

“Juneteenth is as real as Kwanza”

Revealing comment!

“It is both a remembrance of a blight on our history and a celebration of our Nation’s unsurpassed ability to triumph over darkness.”

Sounds pretty real to me!

[ThePublius]

"I enjoyed my day off and I hope others did as well, one way or another."

You must be a government employee. Most non-government employees had to work.

I don't get the celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was clearly a cynical war tactic on Lincoln's part, since it freed slaves only of Confederate states. It did not apply to border states that remained loyal to the Union, nor to areas already under Union control within the Confederacy. Specifically, it did not apply to the following states:
Maryland
Delaware
Kentucky
Missouri
Tennessee: (although a Confederate state, it was largely under Union control)
Areas of Virginia and Louisiana already under Union control

So, a big middle finger to slaves in Delaware, for example. So, yea, let's celebrate the news getting to Texas two year late.

[Estragon]

Must I?

“I don't get the celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation.”

I don’t think this day is to celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation per se. Rather “[i]t is both a remembrance of a blight on our history and a celebration of our Nation’s unsurpassed ability to triumph over darkness.” Who could argue with that?

[ThePublius]

"The holiday's name, first used in the 1890s, is a combination of the words June and nineteenth, referring to June 19, 1865, the day when Major General Gordon Granger ordered the final enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation in Texas at the end of the American Civil War." [emphasis mine]

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, which is why until fairly recently it was a holiday of purely local significance, because it really only meant anything in Texas. Slaves in a couple other states remained enslaved until December.

[Estragon]

“fairly recently”

Did you know there was an emancipation day celebration in Richmond, VA in 1905?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How many new federal holidays do you want?

Just pick one, thanks.

[Magister]

The relevant part would probably be "the final enforcement".

Nobody here was complaining a while ago when Trump wanted the US to celebrate VE day, even though the US still had months of war to go then.

[ThePublius]

"Must I?"

Do you work for some rare non-governmental organization that gave you a day off for the 19th?

[Estragon]

“rare non-governmental organization”

Keep guessing. You’re soooo close!

“Granger ordered the final enforcement”

Right. So it’s more about the liberation of our fellow citizens from bondage than any specific proclamation or date. Obviously it played a large part. I like this quote— wouldn’t you agree?

“[i]t is both a remembrance of a blight on our history and a celebration of our Nation’s unsurpassed ability to triumph over darkness.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone have any opinion on Trump's second illegal delay on the TikTok deadline?
Has anyone in Congress (on either side of the isle) raised any concerns that the law is being ignored?

[bye]

If they haven't, that great and august body, maybe mr Bumble is talking out his rectal area, eh 🙂

[SRG2]

Hegseth says renaming military bases after Civil War soldiers who fought for slavery is ‘important for morale’

“It’s something we’ve been proud to do, something that’s important for the morale of the Army, and those communities appreciate that we’ve returned it back to what it was instead of playing this game of erasing names,” Hegseth said.

Not even pretending that the sites were renamed after military who shared the same name as the traitors.

[Estragon]

Truly the worst people. And this nasty little cherry on top is just so emblematic of the complete lack of decency of these Trumpists:

“Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia asked Hegseth how the family of Arthur Gregg — the first African American in the U.S. Army to reach the rank of lieutenant general — reacted to news that the military base honoring his name would be reverted to Fort Lee.”

[Estragon]

Can anyone guess the punchline?

[hobie]

I guess there's no black people in Hegseth's military

[Frank Drackman]

You guess wrong, Hobie-Stank, you'd stink a Valor Thief would be more knowledgeable about the Institution he claimed to serve in.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I read Dave Barry's autobiography (Class Clown). Liked it overall. It has a lot of content from his columns.

I was a regular reader of his columns. I liked the illustrations from the cartoonist behind the Shoe comic strip. Dave Barry Slept Here is a funny and often true in spirit parody of history books (much happened in the last 35 years!).

Dave Barry has a serious side, though he overall has a "class clown" persona. He does not talk much about his family (merely cites his first two wives, including Beth, who is the wife on the sitcom based on his columns) except for his parents. For instance, a Newsweek piece references that his sister was institutionalized.

https://www.newsweek.com/he-cant-make-200904

I have not read Barry's fiction, which is the focus of many of his writings after he retired from steady column writing twenty years ago. His son is a reporter. His wife is a sports reporter. Barry himself started in journalism before going into business writing.

[SRG2]

His columns in the IHT (IIRC) were some of the funniest pieces I have ever read.

[SRG2]

MAGA’s Plan to Remake an Iconic New York Landmark

I didn't realise there was such a thing as "Woke architecture" but apparently there needs to be in order to react against it.

This doesn't make them wrong as far as aesthetics are concerned. There is much to condemn about modern architecture, most notably on the outside, the lack of visual interest - for your basic 1960s office block - or outright ugliness, e.g., the grisly Florey Building in Oxford, where I had the misfortune to stay in my first year, or trying to futurise the design while skimping on materials and maintenance - Brasilia.

My favourite modern building is the MI6 building on the South Bank. It is clearly not classical, but it has plenty of visual interest and it adheres to Mandelbrot's principle of architecture (see his "Fractal Geometry of Nature"), that as you approach it, different features should become apparent - not quite fractal, but not the plainness of those office buildings. (Simplest example - fluted columns.) Classical architecture has that necessary quality, Bauhaus does not. The Sagrada Familia cathedral has it - , Guildford Cathedral (see in The Omen, fwiw) does not.

However, simply to copy classical architecture, whether you're Terry Quinlan or Albert Speer, is an admission of lack of creativity. Is it impossible to devise a new American style that doesn't rip off classical architecture but that still has aesthetic appeal to those of us who did not study architectural criticism?

[Estragon]

Trump has been obsessed about this for some time. See also the tweets about the flagpoles and “ballroom” addition to the white house recently. Not to mention the online-sourced faux gold in the West Wing. As someone adroitly pointed out the other day— sometimes it seems as though Trump would prefer being first spouse. In fact that may be close to the reality after witnessing the ICE enforcement gyrations last weekend— Steven Miller, perhaps the most odious person in public life today (sorry Mike Lee, you’re #2) seems to be driving this bus.

[John F. Carr]

A reminder from the Appeals Court of Massachusetts that the castle doctrine is not always a license to kill. Defendant annoyed other people in the apartment by watching porn. Victim smashed defendant's laptop. Defendant fatally stabbed victim. The judge refused to relieve defendant from the duty to retreat. The victim was his roommate. You can't stand your ground against a person legally in the dwelling. He was convicted of second degree murder. The Appeals Court agreed with the trial judge.

Defendant also argued that he should have been convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. No. There was no sudden combat in the absence of physical contact. Whether smashing a computer was sufficient provocation was a jury question. (On the facts described I would go into the jury room inclined towards manslaughter. I could be talked into murder.)

Commonwealth v. Andrews, 24-P-430.

In other state court news, the fallout from Bruen continues. In unlawful possession cases the state is now required to prove absence of a gun license. Prosecutor offered defendant's felony conviction as evidence. He could not legally have a gun license with a felony on his record. The felony is not an element of the offense, as it would be under the federal felon in possession statute. The felony is evidence of lack of a license. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled showing the jury the record of conviction, with offense details redacted, was not improper "prior bad act" evidence.

Commonwealth v. Collins, SJC-13699

[ThePublius]

Regarding the second case, I don't understand. Why couldn't the state just assert that there is no record of the defendant having a license, after a search of the licensing database? That would take the prior bad act issue off the table. I know that logically you can't prove a negative. But there is a finite non-zero probability that he could have been issued a license in error, too.

Aside form that, I am opposed to the concept of a permanently prohibited person. In our justice system, once a person has served their punishment they should have ALL of their rights restored. Removing a civil right forever is wrong. His felony conviction was 27 years ago! And it needn't just be a felony, as even a misdemeanor DUI offense conviction similarly renders one a federally prohibited person, since the maximum possible sentence is 2.5 years. The threshold is one year.

Further, I am generally opposed to requiring a license at all. We don't need a license to exercise any other civil right.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why couldn't the state just assert that there is no record of the defendant having a license, after a search of the licensing database?"

Because licensing databases have occasionally turned out to have missing records, so absence of a record is not proof of anything, it's merely suggestive.

[ReaderY]

By that standard, nothing in this world is proof of anything. Nothing conveys absolute certainty. All evidence is merely probative, i.e. only suggestive.

[Brett Bellmore]

And a lot of government databases are missing enough records that they don't make the cut as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

[John F. Carr]

And so two pieces of evidence are better than one. The state could have one witness testify to lack of a license record and another testify that the defendant has a felony conviction. If either is believed the defendant is guilty.

[ThePublius]

I'm reading the SJC decision. There's this:

"He [defense attorney] further argued that the Commonwealth could prove lack of licensure through less prejudicial means, such as
offering testimony from a representative of the Department of
Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) that the
defendant's name is absent from a database of firearms license
holders.1 The Commonwealth disputed that calling a witness from
CJIS was feasible at the defendant's trial [2] and further argued
that, in any case, the Commonwealth could not be precluded from
offering what was, in the Commonwealth's view, its "best
evidence" that the defendant lacked a license."

The relevant footnote:
[2] The prosecutor represented that, at the time of the
defendant's trial shortly after the Guardado I decision, there
were only "two witnesses from CJIS in the entire [S]tate,"
depriving the Commonwealth of "the capacity to bring in CJIS to
the literally hundreds of firearm cases that are pending in the
Commonwealth at any given time."

I would have argued that the lack of state resources should not injure my client.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts has a statutory process to restore some gun rights. This is currently ineffective because federal felon in possession law only counts restoration of all rights. A Massachusetts man had his right to carry a long gun restored, carried a long gun, and was convicted as a felon in possession because his right to carry a handgun was not restored.

The federal law allowing restoration of rights was long ineffective, see United States v. Bean, but has been revived by executive order this year.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Chris Geidner responds to responses to Skrmetti:

https://www.lawdork.com/p/where-is-the-outrage-over-skrmetti

[ReaderY]

I have a question for people who claim Governor Newsom shirked his duties regarding the federalization of the California National Guard by refusing to transmit President Trump’s order.

The Constitution requires bills passed by Congress to be signed by the President before they become law.

1. Is a President shirking his duties if he refuses to sign a bill?

2. If the President shirks his duties and refuses to cooperate with Congress, can Congress satisfy the technical procedural requirement of obtaining a Presidential signature by getting some other Executive Branch official able to act on the President’s behalf, such as the Vice President, to sign it?

What’s the difference from this case?

[John F. Carr]

The constitution says what happens if the president doesn't sign a bill: it becomes law unless Congress is adjourned. There is no need to seek creative solutions.

[ReaderY]

Assume Congress wants to adjourn and the pocket veto would be in effect unless Congress can get somebody else to sign it.

Alternatively, rather than coming up with more red herring reasons to shoot down the analogy, just respond to the substance of the argument - 10 USC 12406’s requirement that orders to federalize state militia be issued through a state’s governor is not a mere procedural technicality as the 9th Circuit thought, but instead gives (and was intended to give) a state’s governor a substantive right to choose to consent or not consent, analogous to the President’s veto right over bills.

[ThePublius]

"Alternatively, rather than coming up with more red herring reasons to shoot down the analogy, just respond to the substance of the argument...."

He's responding to your analogy, which is rather inane, in my opinion. There is nothing analogous about Newsom's actions and the President's veto powers.

[Bored Lawyer]

Because the statute does not say that.

Whenever—
(1)the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2)there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3)the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

The statute says nothing about asking a governor whether to call the militia. All it says is that orders "shall be issued through the governors." Shall is a mandatory term. It means that the Governor has to follow the president's orders about deploying the militia.

So quite the contrary, the discretion is vested in the president alone. The governor of the state then becomes part of the chain of command.

[John F. Carr]

I agree the state's role is not purely ministerial and California could have said "f--- off." But California didn't. The governor, through the Adjutant General who is authorized to give orders in the governor's name, complied with Trump's demand.

[loki13]

John,

Based on the panel's reasoning, I disagree for two reasons.

First, the panel seemed to view this as a procedural matter- that there wasn't any ability for California to say "F--- off." See p. 32 n.4. If there had been such an ability, I think California did try repeatedly to do so.

Second ... I read the procedural section several times. I gotta say that I find the reasoning unconvincing, except for the procedural posture and the nature of the action. I think the administration effed it up (and knowingly did so by removing Newsom from the loop). But enjoining Presidential authority over a deployment that has already been made is a massive order, and to do so for a technical problem .... I have to say, it's a lot easier to kick the can down the road and then release an opinion after the deployment ends that says, "Our bad. Actually, you can't just send it to the Adjutant General. Next time, don't do it that way. No harm, no foul?"

Look, if you concede that the state can't stop the President from federalizing the state's national guard, you need to be careful about deciding cases when it comes to "you didn't sign the form in triplicate" procedure.

[Bored Lawyer]

"you didn't sign the form in triplicate"

Another expression that harkens back to old technology.

Like "dialing" a phone number.

I find these kind of linguistic antiques (if you can call them that) interesting.

[loki13]

I think that you are trying to get to an interesting issue, but ... good luck with that.

From my perspective, there's two things going on with the National Guard issue. There's the legal issue, and then there's the underlying merits.

Breaking them into the two components, the legal issue is interesting. If looked at neutrally, there are issues of procedure (the correct procedure to take control of a state's national guard) as well as analysis of text and levels of review and discretion (can the Executive do it whenever, and if not, what is the appropriate level of scrutiny to determine if the President is improperly using the law, etc.). That's interesting despite the context!

Unfortunately, there's the political context. Putting aside the BS partisan stuff, it appears that there are two camps- one seems to believe that LA is a hellscape of rioting and looters waiting to cut you and string you up. The other (many of whom live in LA) understand that this was not wanted, affected the smallest of areas, made the situation worse ... and that it was done in response to an event that was far, far less than the average celebration of a college national championship.

The small college town I lived in saw worse on graduation night than what LA was experiencing that triggered Trump.

Anyway, that's how I see it. But the thing is- the way people view the underlying merits (correctly or incorrectly) are inextricably tied into how they are viewing the legal case. But the arguments advanced by the administration (and shot down by the appellate panel) are that these decisions are always unreviewable.

Which is the key issue, for me. Personally, I don't want any executive of any party sending in the national guard when there is no reason to do so. But I also didn't ever really worry about that, until now- because, you know ... why would they? Which is why I hadn't really thought about the legal framework.

And I think that this case, like some others, presents difficult questions about what role (if any) courts should play if we have abandoned norms.

[Bored Lawyer]

one seems to believe that LA is a hellscape of rioting and looters waiting to cut you and string you up

Not quite. It's a gang that decided the federal government will be prevented from enforcing immigration laws.

[CindyF]

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has rejected fast-tracking of Trump tariff challenge by toy companies.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062025zr_e1pf.pdf

[hobie]

Speaking of plastic toys, do the tariffs apply to our beloved guns?

[Estragon]

Pam Bondi was confirmed as AG on Feb. 4. Today is June 20. That’s 136 days!

Where are those Epstein files?