Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 6.23.2025 6:58 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: No Preliminary Injunctions Against Penn's Sanctions on Prof. Amy Wax
Hide Comments (598)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes has denied the DOJ motion for detention of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. https://tennesseelookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Abrego-Garcia.pdf The Magistrate Judge opined that the government had failed to prove that this case involves: (1) a minor victim within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(E); (2) a “serious risk” that Abrego will flee, as required by § 3142(f)(2)(A); or, (3) a “serious risk” that Abrego will obstruct justice or otherwise interfere with the integrity of this proceeding, as required by § 3142(f)(2)(B). The Court further opined that the government has not met its burden under § 3142(g) because the Court finds that there are conditions of release that can be imposed to reasonably assure the safety of others and the community and to reasonably assure Abrego’s appearance as required.
As Gomer Pyle was fond of saying, surprise surprise surprise!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TnkJ8_BmSI
Whenever the Trump administration has to produce actual evidence, it comes out holding the short end of the stick.
Well there is a little more to the story than just that, ABC says:
"ICE will likely detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia despite judge's motion to have him released"
And in the Nashville Banner:
All of this may be an academic exercise, Holmes noted in her ruling: The government is still attempting to deport Abrego Garcia. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has placed a detainer on him and – if or when he is released – ICE would take custody of him.
Holmes suggested in a hearing that those maneuvers were “above my pay grade.”
https://nashvillebanner.com/2025/06/22/kilmar-abrego-garcia-detention-ruling/
The fact remains, Kazinski. The Trump administration chose a forum where there were required to present evidence -- albeit with the standards of evidence applicable at trial significantly relaxed. They fell far short of the mark.
In an oft-quoted passage, Justice Sutherland opined in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935):
The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
Acting United States Attorney Robert McGuire fell far short of than mark here. Shame on him.
Holmes is a lawyer. She is a Democrat. Both protect the criminal. Both want to import more to increase their representation in Congress. They do not care about about public safety. She should be hounded out of office and out the state. Conduct the same lawfare against her that the Democrats always do. Everyone with a job commits 3 federal felonies a day. Lend me a laptop for an hour. I can get you $millions in fines, decades in federal prison, no matter who you are. Investigate her.
How do you claim to know Judge Holmes's political party affiliation?
If only those hounded by the Biden DOJ for protesting at the Capitol had been illegal alien gangbanger human traffickers, then they might not have been languishing in a DC jail in solitary confinement awaiting trial.
And that whataboutism has what to do with whether the DOJ has shown that Abrego Garcia should be detained pending trial?
It highlights how much the evidentiary standards change with the defendant's skin color.
lol, just not like Mikie means!
“The truth is that about 15 percent of those arrested so far in connection with the riot have been denied bail and remain in pretrial custody — much lower than the overall federal pretrial detention rate of 75 percent.” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/politics/capitol-riot-pro-trump-claims.html
Hmm. 9/17/21. And The NY Times, which has only a passing association with the truth. This says nothing as to those held in DC, says nothing as to those held anywhere after 9/17/21 (and who knows what time period those "statics" even covered, although we know it isn't anything after 9/17/2021), says nothing as to the propriety of that detention, and says nothing as to how many protestors associated with democrat causes have been denied bail in DC, or even how many protestors of any political affiliation have been denied bail in DC.
But why even try to engage in any exchange with someone whose only response will be to parrot another insult? Not sure. Some stupidity is just too tempting to resist the inclination to mock, I guess.
Still waiting, Riva. That whataboutism has what to do with whether the DOJ has shown that Abrego Garcia should be detained pending trial?
You must have missed my comment below directly responding to your politically selective views, or maybe we can just say plain hypocrisy? At any rate, this is a different chain and concerns my response to the troll.
Riva bot is clearly malfunctioning, what it demonstrates is that far from being treated unfairly on the “color of their skin” as Mikie claimed the numbers support the conclusion the Jan. 6 rioters were far more likely to get pretrial detention release than the average federal defendant (which are disproportionately people of color).
I thought I dumbed it down to the point even you could understand but I guess not. I think I'll leave you now to go do whatever it is you do to waste the day away. We're done here.
Riva bot going to perform that much needed diagnostic! Make sure to install the statistics and informal logic programs!
And with the political winds.
Your commitment to defending the rights of mistreated American citizens is admirable.
Investigate the judge. Arrest her for the likely 3 federal felonies committed daily by everyone with a job.
The terrorists who attacked the Capitol on J6 were not "protesting" anything.
Aren't subjective assertions that he's an antisemitic terrorist kinda like evidence?
Different case Hobie.
DOJ might be able to prove these charges at trial eventually, but it looks like they charged before doing a thorough criminal investigation into the alleged human smuggling. Instead they basically relied on what ICE had, which might be fine for deportation proceedings, but isn’t going to cut it for a federal criminal trial.
Not only that, but Bondi and co are so invested in this now that they may in fact be cutting deals with the real baddies:
“The first cooperator, who provided interview statements and grand jury testimony, has two prior felony convictions, has previously been deported five times, and was released early from a 30-month federal prison sentence for human smuggling as part of his cooperation in this case. He is the purported domestic leader of the human smuggling organization in which Abrego is accused of participating. He has been granted deferred action on deportation in exchange for his testimony.”
MAGAs unmoved, I’m sure.
Hey MAGAs! Is Pam Bondi harboring criminal aliens???
“The second cooperator is also an avowed member of the human smuggling organization and is presently in custody charged with a federal crime for which he hopes to be released in exchange for his cooperating grand jury testimony. He has also been previously deported and has requested deferred action on deportation in exchange for his cooperation. The second cooperator is a closely related family member of the first cooperator.”
She also was violating all the professional conduct rules and DOJ guidelines on pre-trial publicity by accusing him of things not indicted and saying he was going to be convicted sentenced to the maximum sentence and then deported.
I'm not sure the criminal case against Abrego will go to trial. He is before a good District Judge, and he may have a strong claim to dismiss the indictment based on prosecutorial vindictiveness. The indictment appears to have been brought in retaliation for his kicking DOJ ass in his civil proceedings.
A decision to prosecute may not be deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, specifically including the accused's exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985).
So what is the over/under on how many weeks before he is booted out of the US?
Legally, less than 50%. Illegally? Much, much higher.
If one cares about the law, the difference matters more than the odds.
You don't seem to understand the concept of over/under. My question was basically how many weeks before deportation; not the chances of it happening.
I don't follow sports of any kind. So yeah, I just read that as a ratio.
As always, the administration's position involved chutzpah. They actually argued (among other things) that Abrego Garcia should be denied bail because there's a risk of flight because if they deported him then he couldn't appear in court.
Question: If you were advising Donald Trump before the bombing: Would you have advised him (as I would have) to call the Dem leadership to give a heads-up in advance? Maybe the Gang of Eight? Definitely at least a few of the more hawkish Dems? The only reason I think of not to is the fear that the plans would be leaked, but that's something that the Gang of Eight simply would not have done. That's part of the deal for being brought into the fold, and that's gone back decades, I think. (Plus, there would have been no motivation for leaking. You tell them an hour beforehand, and it's not like they would be running to phone leadership in Iran, even if they did have black and evil hearts.)
The upside would have been, of course, true bipartisan buy-in on this mission. We'll hopefully still get it from both sides of the aisle--along with legitimate skepticism from both sides of the aisle, of course.
I get the instinct for operational secrecy. But the closer we dance to acts of war, the more I wish we had Congressional input (and this means from both D's and R's).
When has the Trump administration ever worried about operational security? The Iranian leadership must have priced in a 50/50 likelihood of him doing this for weeks now.
You have just showed that you don't understand actual operational security.
Nico — Trump had already blown any chance for operational security, when he came out and announced in public, "I will almost immediately, not two weeks from now, bomb these targets in Iran."
What kind of dunce would it take after that not to evacuate the targets, haul off the enriched uranium, ring the empty bunkers with whatever defensive capacity still remained, and stay on 100% alert?
To give U.S. intelligence some credit, it's likely that when Trump made that announcement it was intended to flush into view whatever the Iranians would choose to haul off, and track where it went. To give the Iranians some credit, it's likely they already had at least some fully enriched uranium elsewhere, in a location no one else ever heard of.
Trump did arrange to demonstrate that the B2 bomber could penetrate with impunity a full-alert effort by an already crippled Iranian air defense. So there's that.
Stephen, You are confusing operational security with efficacy of the operation. You make a valid point with respect to the later.
"To give U.S. intelligence some credit.." I would have said to give US and Israeli intelligence credit.. As for the credit to Iran, one must remember that the 600 kg of 60% U-235 would have been in the form of gas (22,000 liters of gas at STP) that would have to be reduced to metallic uranium. Principal site for that chemical processing was at Isfahan. Unless Iran was only concerned with making gun assembled weapons (doubtful) they would have wanted to enrich at produce ~50 kg of 90% U-235, hence they should have set aside ~100 kg of their 60% gas for further enrichment. Of course, all of that could have been done.
For those who are curious: at 93% U-235 one bare sphere critical mass is 47 kg at 60% U-235 one bare sphere critical mass is 100 kg
Don,
What is a "bare" sphere as opposed to a fully dressed one?
(serious question)
bernard, It means that the sphere of material is not surrounded by a neutron reflector or a neutron moderator. For example, if one surrounds the sphere of 60% U-235 with 10 to 15 centimeters of beryllium oxide, the critical mass will be cut from 100 kg to ~65 kg (that is a rough estimate from some previous computions, not from a computer simulation of this particular example)
Thank you, Don.
So surrounding it that way reduces critical mass - the opposite of what I would have thought.
I don't suppose just wrapping it in aluminum foil and putting it in a cardboard box would matter much.
bernard, The reason is simple. when an Uranium nucleus fissions, it produces 2 neutrons. If these neutrons hit another nucleus before they escape from the surface of the sphere they continue the chain reaction. If the sphere is big enough changes are much great that the neutrons hit another uranium rather than escaping. The "big enough" is what determines the critical mass. Suppose the ball of uranium is not big enough, BUT you put a neutron reflector around it. Then the neutron is not lost it travel back through the insider of the ball where it can run into another uranium nuclear. Therefore the neutron reflector on the outside makes the ball effectively larger; it lowers the critical mass
"What kind of dunce would it take after that not to evacuate the targets, haul off the enriched uranium..."
If that's true, all the Israelis would have had to do was goad them into thinking Fordow was going to be bombed and take the uranium out in transit.
"To give the Iranians some credit," it's more likely that they thought the uranium was safer 300 feet underground than in some secret location where the Mossad couldn't find it.
Not at all likely. Either they did that for years or they didn't do it all. True, Biden kissed their hateful asss but they must have known he was out of his mind and possibly to drop dead at any moment.
I think everyone realizes the level of trust you rhapsodize about has been eroded. Adam Schiff was formerly on the Gang of Eight, he abused his position as head of the intelligence committee to lie to Congress. And of course the distrust is mutual, I don't think Schumer of Jeffries have much trust in Trump either.
The only reason I think of not to is the fear certainty that the plans would be leaked...
FTFY
20 years ago, I would agree. Today, NFW.
Yes, the guys who discuss military secrets on Signal are definitley the guys who are worried about operational security.
Operational security?
On this question Trump and company live in a house made entirely of very thin glass. Trump cultists throwing stones is not a good look.
I know - "But Hillary's emails!!!!"
"Would you have advised him (as I would have) to call the Dem leadership to give a heads-up in advance?"
Only if I for some tactical reason wanted the Iranians to have advance notice of the strike.
That’s a helluva charge.
I make it too
DO you not remember U.S. top general secretly called China over fears Trump could spark war -report By Reuters September 15, 2021
Hey, I remember back when Rep. Bonior, on the intelligence committee, got caught phoning the Sandanistas right after a classified briefing on Contra activities. (He wasn't alone.) Mind you, the Democrats thought the scandal was him being caught, not his sharing intelligence briefings with a hostile foreign country.
Fiers Describes CIA's Easedropping on Congressional Calls to Sandinistas
I recall reading years ago that some of the Democrats on the Intelligence committee were such reliable leakers that they were occasionally used to leak disinformation to national enemies.
Brett linking to an article where the source was convicted of Iran-Contra offenses to demonstrate the untrustworthiness of Dems in foreign affairs is comedy gold.
I recall none of that because it’s a long time ago,
You went on Dems are evil vibes again, it seems.
It's that How-can-you-possibly-think-Dems-would-try-to-undermine-Trump vibe, and you could only find it with your head up your ass.
Because you personally couldn't remember it, you don't think he did?
I don’t think it’s relevant to anything going on today, without showing a lot more work.
Like all that work you do to channel your vibes.
Patrick (Leaky) Leahy was kicked off of it for leaking during the Iran Contra Hearings. See Engelberg, Stephen (July 29, 1987). "Iran-Contra Hearings; Senator Leahy Says He Leaked Report of Panel". The New York Times. New York, NY. p. A1
Another person who doesn't bother to read the articles he cites. Leahy was not kicked off anything.
I recall writing a year or so ago, last time you raised these ridiculous conspiracy theories, that your sources again do not in any way support any of your ridiculous conspiracy theories.
"The report quoted Johnson telling Nicaraguan officials that if they 'wanted better relations with the United States, and particularly with Congress, they needed to improve their human rights record, open newspapers and take other steps of that kind,' Barnes recalled."
In other words, no leaking of anything.
Bellmore, heads up in advance? The point of the Constitutionally mandated consultation is to facilitate or reject upon due consideration, a declaration of war. No reason to omit that for reasons of operational security. It's intended to be the most public kind of Congressional action there is.
Uh, 50 U.S.C. § 1542 is plain and unambiguous:
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
possible
Operational security may not make it possible.
I read the statute a couple of times. I'm not seeing 'operational security' as a condition for congressional consultation.
You're correct, it does not say the words "operational security."
It also doesn't define would make it not possible to inform Congress.
I think it's notable that Congress didn't write the statute with the phrase "every instance" but instead to allow that there are times where it is not possible for the President to inform Congress, like during Democratic administrations.
True, but I don't think hare-brained hypotheticals, or decades-old events, are a reason to make it impossible.
Why do you people invent weird definitions of words to try to protect Trump? Dishwashers are not invaders. Drug dealing is not an incursion by a foreign government. And not possible means unable, not unwilling. Things that would make it impossible: an EMP has wiped out all communications; a terrorist attack has left most members of Congress dead; or a foreign threat is so imminent that the president must act within minutes of learning about it, and therefore cannot notify Congress before acting.
Why do you people invent weird definitions of words to try to protect Trump?
Why do you people invent weird definitions of words and phrases to try to oppose Trump? A records obstruction statute isn't a blank check to prosecute any disruption of a Congressional proceeding. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment means that only Congress gets to decide how to enforce the 14A. "Through the Governors" does not convey any consultation or veto power over calling out of the National Guard.
And not possible means unable, not unwilling
You can certainly send an email to dead members of Congress while pushing the big red button. Same with being under a time crunch like if the missiles are already incoming. Their successors in office will be able to read it after they get elected.
If informing Congress no longer makes the military action possible due to Congress leaking the information to the public (and thus our enemies), then it is no longer possible to inform Congress prior to the action.
"If informing Congress no longer makes the military action possible due to Congress leaking the information to the public (and thus our enemies)"
Basing policy on cynical paranoia.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.
It is plain and unambiguous that no president has accepted the WPA as constitutionality valid and binding. Clinton ignored it. It is also plain and unambiguous that President Trump’s proper exercise of his authority as commander in chief was not contrary to the text you quoted.
Article I, § 8, ¶14 of the Constitution provides that the Congress shall have the power "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".
What word or group of words there do you fail to understand, Riva?
You forgot to mention Art. II.
Ah, the argument that because the president is commander=in-chief, he can deploy the armed forces willy-nilly. It was always a bullshit unconstitutional argument.
(Also, the president is not commander-in-chief of the USAF. That power has not been delegated to him yet.)
Implied powers trump explicit ones!
Well, ignoring the "willy-nilly" nonsense, yeah because he is commander in chief he can deploy the military to defend national security. That's why he's called the commander in chief.
As to your comments on the USAF, I'll be kind and give you a chance to edit and delete that nonsense. If you're out time, you're stuck with that embarrassment.
I don't think that's a historically supported argument. Being the commander and chief of a military hasn't, if we look at similar examples around to world, granted unlimited freedom from regulation on the use of that military . An easy example, the Lord High Admiral of England (later UK) was the commander and chief of the Royal Navy. And yet for most of its history, both when the office of Lord High Admiral was held by a single man and later held in commission, was subordinate to the command of the king and later to the laws of parliament.
(There were also times where the title was held directly by the monarch but for this argument, we're looking at the periods where it wasn't)
You might question whether foreign precedents are relevant but you're the one who's reading inherit non textual authority into being Commander and Chief. Therefore examples (particular English common law examples) of what inherent authority a commander and chief has is clearly relevant.
It's a constitutionally based argument. There seems to be some confusion. I'm reading the Constitution. I have no idea what you're doing.
“I'm reading the Constitution.”
Parts of it, at least! Riva bot has not been programmed for a full read!
I tend to think that being commander-in-chief implies control of military activities, but not political decisions.
That is, if a political decision is taken to attack Iran, it is the President who decides the form of the attack, the methods used, etc.
But the President has no independent authority to make the decision to attack, at least not in his role as C-in-C.
Not embarrassing at all. Where in the Constitution does it say that the president is commander-in-chief of air forces? It doesn't. It explicitly states that he is c-in-c of the army and navy. For him to be c-in-c of the air force requires a constitutional amendment.
Yes it's ridiculous, but the ridicule should be targeted at the Constitution itself, or the people responsible for amending it, not someone who points out quite rightly where it is deficient.
That's borderline retarded but if you're comfortable with that, you run with it. In fact, why only be mocked in this little forum here? Make it more concise and put it on protest sign so you can receive more exposure.
Not actually addressing the argument, of course, because "Quixotic" is not synonymous with "wrong".
Air force is just a name, its an army of the air.
Army Air Corps, then Army Air Force then Air Force. Same entity, just different name..
Nice try - perhaps you'll argue that the Space Force will be a navy because they'll have space ships.
At the time of the Constitution, an army would have meant a land force - and flying already took place and was known to the FFs, yet they didn't have the foresight to allow for the possibility of an aerial force. To this day, an air force is not regularly called an army. Why are you so opposed to a constitutional amendment?
Armée de l'air et de l'espace
Come on, the Founding Fathers had the foresight to take over the airports in the Revolutionary War.
Robert le Merdiste...
The Constitution was written in English, though apparently of such a peculiar and complex style that, to so many posters here, it might as well have been written in Old Church Slavonic. I do not have that problem.
Actually they were briefed, the claim were not turns out to be bullshit:
"We did make bipartisan calls," Leavitt stated, setting the record straight from the outset. "Thomas Massie and the Democrats — he should be a Democrat 'cause he's more aligned with them than with the Republican Party — were given notice. The White House made calls to congressional leadership. They were bipartisan calls."
"In fact, Hakeem Jeffries couldn't be reached," she explained. "We tried him before the strike and he didn't pick up the phone, but he was briefed after, as well as Chuck Schumer was briefed prior to the strike."
Thomas Massie and the Democrats — he should be a Democrat 'cause he's more aligned with them than with the Republican Party
Is there a better line encapsulating the sickness in the GOP right now?
Article II does not say anything at all about the president having authority to decide to attack another country. That is an Article I power. Article II says that the president is CinC, which means that it gives the president, after Congress has made that decision, to decide which service members to order to undertake the mission.
SCOTUS in 1862 opined regarding the interplay between the exclusive Congressional power to declare war and the President's power as commander-in-chief:
By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But, by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.
Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1862) [emphasis added]. The disjunctive connection "to initiate or declare a war" is significant. It is difficult to see how ordering bombing strikes against a nation not already involved in hostilities against the United States is anything short of initiating war.
LOL, that's so yesterday!
He "consulted" -- he told everyone that he MIGHT bomb Iraq, that he was "thinking about it."
Oh, Like Barry Hussein did with the Bin Laden operation?
Libya too, of course.
Riva : Clinton! Frankie: Obama! Michael P: Libya!
Drink!
Is that you, Joe Biden? Most people remember that Barack Hussein Obama had the US military conduct offensive operations against Qaddafi's regime in Libya, but I guess some people are too senile or drunk to recall that.
I never realised that Obama's middle name indicates that he might not be 100% white European. Thanks for pointing that out,
So his middle name's "Hussein"?? seems only your side gets upset when it's mentioned
The writer of the Frank Fakeman character performed here is not only a sad weirdo (seriously, think about an adult doing that) but also dumb, as SRG2’s comment sailed over his head.
Whataboutism hat trick!
'Alex, I'll take Whataboutism for 800.'
'And the answer is: These three snowflakes never address the subjects in The Volokh Conspiracy.'
Oh yes, the "because Trump" rules. Or is it just "D"ifferent when it happened in (D) admins? As is normal, you had nothing to say then - but now it is an impeachable offense.
You want cheese with your whine?
Many thought Libya sans Congress was wrong, too, and said so at the time.
It doesn't excuse anything, just exposes pandering politics. If anyone recalls, there was panic in the west's populations of what that monster would do to the Arab Spring in Libya, hence the intervention.
President Obama chose not to inform Congress and that is a decision he could make. The question is not whether to inform Congress or not to inform Congress, but rather to inform the full leadership of Congress. If the President is going to notify Congress in advance the protocol is to inform the full gang of eight.
Then you should suspect that those Congressmen want to give input, but that is obviously not true. They know why they weren't consulted and they are probably glad for the publicity it gives them. Not much care for the American people at any rate.
No, there’s only one president and he would have been foolish to risk the security of those on this mission by disclosing details to democrats who would leak to the NY Times before the planes reached Iran.
Or the Atlantic?
It’s bad enough the usual MAGA conspiracy paranoia being used to justify the preemptive breaking of at least the spirit of the law and norms, but for the Signalgate ignorers to do so is comedy gold.
Not a hockey or soccer fan, I see!
Also, that was more every accusation is a confession than whataboutism, know your memes!
'
A preventative strike is used to avoid war.
I think the question is why the Republican Congressional leaders let the President inform them and not insist that the entire gang of eight be briefed.
Under the WPA, Trump is only required to brief the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate. He did that. Anything else was a courtesy.
I would never expect courtesy from Donald Trump. My complaint is the failure of Republican Congressional leaders to stand up for the tradition of having leaders of both parties briefed. I think Johnson and Thule were wrong to accept the brief without their Democrat counterparts.
"Would you have advised him (as I would have) to call the Dem leadership to give a heads-up in advance? Maybe"
No. The risk of a leak was too high.
There is no reason to have a dead horse if you can't beat it. Jefferson attacked the Barbary pirates and blockaded harbors sans congressional approval. Nothing has changed since then except maybe Obama not only attacking foreign nations but collateral damage being the death of Americans. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Looks like Jefferson had approval:
“Just before Jefferson's inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that "shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct." In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to "protect our commerce and chastise their insolence—by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and vessels wherever you shall find them."[33]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
Congress commissioned ships to deal with the eventuality of having to deal with forces such as the Barbary Pirates in exactly the way they commissioned bunker busters with the idea they might need to bust someone's bunker.
If you look at that little [33] in your wiki article, you will find that it is a thing called "a source" which is "The First Barbary War". Your source itself says:
In his annual address to Congress at the end of the year, Jefferson reported on the demands of the pasha, concluded that "the style of the demand admitted but one answer," and described the action taken to date. That action had been taken without any consultation with Congress, but the president now asked for formal and expanded power to deal with Barbary."
See that line: "That action had been taken without any consultation with Congress" in your own source ?
“In the meantime, just before Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, Congress passed “An Act Providing for a Naval Peace Establishment,” legislation providing for six frigates that “shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.”
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2024/03/02/war-powers-the-true-history-of-thomas-jefferson-and-the-barbary-pirates/
Which doesn't change the fact that Jefferson conducted a military exercise without being granted approval by congress. In fact, your own source indicates that Jefferson argued that since this was a defensive measure he didn't need it and to pursue an actual war, he would need it.
Yes, he would later get that in 1802, but for the action in 1801 he most certainly did not have congressional approval. This is exactly why they passed the act in 1802.
.... and as an aside, if you are going full pedant sophist and argue congressional appropriations gave Jefferson the power to act, Trump has those congressional appropriations as well.
“In short – only in a state of war, did anyone in the cabinet believe the Jefferson administration was authorized to respond with force. And even there, Lincoln held that an attack could be repelled, but they couldn’t search for the enemy, and Madison held they weren’t even authorized to enter into enemy harbors except in an active pursuit.”
“Despite this battle, the previous attacks, and the formal declaration of war by Tripoli against the United States, Jefferson was firm in his position that he was still “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”
Artifex — Circa 1800 piracy was a thing, different than war. In the example you cite it is easy in historical context to distinguish actions on the seas to suppress piracy, from a war at the shore to overturn a regime giving aid and comfort to pirates.
Put another way, an early 19th century pirate was stateless, so not warlike. See also, letters of marque and reprisal.
For instance:
J. Gregory Sidak, The Quasi War Cases–and Their Relevance to Whether “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” Constrain Presidential War Powers, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 465 (2005).
Explaining that “letters of marque” were authorizations for privateers to “use force to harass or prey upon a nation’s enemy” and that “reprisal” was the “legally authorized act of securing redress for a debt incurred by a foreign government by forcibly taking the private property of its subjects,” and arguing that the Clause “concerned the distinction between the public and private waging of war and the right of a sovereign nation to make decisions regarding that distinction.”
Wikipedia is misleading. The first quote is Congress. The second quote is Jefferson's orders to the Navy:
President Jefferson held his first cabinet meeting the next day and raised the issue of sending U.S. Navy ships to the Mediterranean to confront Tripoli. Jefferson and his cabinet concluded that it was within the president’s constitutional rights to do so, and the administration issued orders to the commander of the American flotilla to be extremely aggressive in pursuing pirate vessels. The instructions read in part, “chastise their insolence—by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & vessels wherever you shall find them.” Jefferson would later congratulate the commander of the USS Enterprise for punishing “those barbarians” who for too long “trample[d] … on the rights & laws of human nature.” Jefferson misled Congress in this account of events in the Mediterranean by claiming that the U.S. Navy maintained a defensive posture and engaged in hostilities only in case of an attack on an American ship. This restraint was due to the absence of any congressional authorization for the use of force, the president observed
President Jefferson held his first cabinet meeting the next day and raised the issue of sending U.S. Navy ships to the Mediterranean to confront Tripoli. Jefferson and his cabinet concluded that it was within the president’s constitutional rights to do so, and the administration issued orders to the commander of the American flotilla to be extremely aggressive in pursuing pirate vessels. The instructions read in part, “chastise their insolence—by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & vessels wherever you shall find them.” Jefferson would later congratulate the commander of the USS Enterprise for punishing “those barbarians” who for too long “trample[d] … on the rights & laws of human nature.”
Jefferson misled Congress in this account of events in the Mediterranean by claiming that the U.S. Navy maintained a defensive posture and engaged in hostilities only in case of an attack on an American ship. This restraint was due to the absence of any congressional authorization for the use of force, the president observed
Jefferson attacked the Barbary pirates and blockaded harbors sans congressional approval.
For the third time in the last three days: that. is. a. lie. Congress expressly authorized it.
No, Congress did not expressly authorize military action at first. Jefferson was acutely aware that he did not have Congressional authorization and cut half-assed orders to try to get around it.
Regardless, Commodore Dale's ships blockaded Tripoli from July through September in 1801. They even fought and won a naval battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_1_August_1801
Congress only passed their authorization in 1802 after Jefferson pleaded with them to get off of their asses.
The white house said Shumer was notified in advance - Jeffries was called in advance but they were unable to reach him until after. I haven't heard of either of them has disputing this
This is a little embarrassing, but I am going to have to admit I was in error again about Vance Boelter's motivation on drawing up his hit list, and shooting a State Representative and her husband. I thought Boelter's motivation was his own reasons, and that despite his connection with Tim Walz, the reappointment to State board was just an innocent lapse in judgement on Walz's part.
But now Boelter has directly implicated Tim Walz, claiming he was acting under Walz's orders writing a "letter addressed to the FBI, alleged assassin Vance Boelter claimed Gov. Tim Walz instructed him to kill U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar so that Walz could run for the U.S. Senate, according to two people familiar with the contents of the letter."
"It also allegedly contained Boelter’s confession that he carried out the shootings that killed state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and injured Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette."
The report is in the Minnesota Star Tribune (which was founded in 1865, and is currently the 7th largest US newspaper. Its publisher is a former Tim Walz Cabinet appointee).
https://www.startribune.com/vance-boelter-letter-klobuchar-walz-mn-assassination/601376682&
The Star Tribune is the quintessential Democrat party (in this case DFL) rag.
Tl;dr, Kazinski spent more time watching Newsmaxxx over the weekend.
I mainly get my TV news from the BBC or Bloomberg business, if I've watched Newsmaxx, I don't recall it.
The Star Tribune is as establishment Democrat as it gets here's a headline from 2022:
Star Tribune Editorial Board endorsement: Re-elect Tim Walz for steady leadership Oct 29, 2022
As always, you're not letting your fundamental ignorance of a subject prevent you from running your suck-hole...thus cementing your image as a complete and utter fool.
Never anything substantive from Wuzzie, just insults, epitome of a troll.
When all you do is spout stupidity...something the both of you have in common...well...
lol, every accusation folks!
Regurgitation of bumper sticker slogans isn't the display of wit you think it is.
It’s the display your mom has cum to love!
Apparently Boelter was a "Son of Sam" type killer, with the Governor playing the part of the dog. Go figure.
Imagine if it were a hard core MAGA Governor, though.
Somehow, I think the diagnosis would be a wee bit different because while right wing nuts are politically motivated, left wing ones are merely crazy. And this shows the hypocrisy of the left.
As I pointed out in the last open thread, the "Son of Sam" killer later admitted that the demon in the form of a dog story was a hoax, and a lot of what he did was to gain attention, both during and after his crime spree, an attribute which Boelter does not appear to share. But I am willing to believe that Boelter would try any sort of bold lie just to appear crazy.
"This is a little embarrassing, but I am going to have to admit I was in error again about Vance Boelter's motivation on drawing up his hit list, and shooting a State Representative and her husband. I thought Boelter's motivation was his own reasons, and that despite his connection with Tim Walz, the reappointment to State board was just an innocent lapse in judgement on Walz's part."
You're a level guy, Jeremiah Johnson.
Loved that movie.
You said you had figured it out and he was of the left.
You are still kind of asking that.
I’d think you are trolling but the e f f o r t.
I can’t recall little communist girl that never smiled, because so many here were trying to spread the lie that this political assassin was MAGA, were you one of them?
I don't remember ever saying he was of the left.
But the fact he is didn't have a right wing motive explains why it dropped off the news so quickly.
You said he did it because of a vote to cut off illegal alien health benefits.
And he was featured in the Post and Times today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/21/minnesota-lawmaker-shooting-suspect-prepper/
Here is what you said Malika: "Number of people killed by right wing gunman in Minneapolis suburbs: 2
National Guard time?"
This is what I said, and I don't think a connection has been ruled out yet, but its unlikely:
Second Melissa Hoffman was the sole Democrat in the House to vote on ending state Medicaid for illegals. And she was featured prominently in this news report about the vote on June 10th, just a few days ago.
I am not tying her vote to the shooting, yet, but it does seem to be more than coincidence that she was featured prominently, for a controversial vote, on the news 3 days before a targeted shooting."
“ I am not tying her vote to the shooting, yet, but it does seem to be more than coincidence…”
Malika was quick on the trigger. You spent days of Internet gumshoe bullshit trying to shore up your thesis he was acting out of some leftist sentiment. Even trying to deflect with tu quoque you underscore how much worse you have been in this.
And you are still at it, having retconned your past motivated thinking to align with current contrary facts.
Kazinski's persistent theory about the controversial vote, three days before, by the last legislator he shot has failed on a number of points: 1. The first legislator he shot voted the other way. 2. He visited two other legislator's houses before shooting his last victim and her husband. 3. "Boelter is believed to have started preparing for the rampage nearly five days earlier" from the article that Malika the Maiz posted in this thread. 4. His hit list included abortion providers, abortion rights activists and other Democratic politicians.
Given details available that same day, I criticized Kazinski over points 1, 3 and 4 (although in point 1 I did not then know which legislator was shot first or that others were targeted but not shot; in point 3 that was based on it being unlikely that he could ramp up posing as a policeman that quickly).
Yet! Just asking (dumb) questions!
Let's reduce it for the time being to : Do you think Walz capable of such a thing whether in fact he did it or not. YES, YES YES
What a scoop!
Do you believe Boelter's claim or are you rational?
“This is a little embarrassing, but I am going to have to admit I was in error again about Vance Boelter's motivation on drawing up his hit list, and shooting a State Representative and her husband.”
Wow, I didn’t see that coming! But the double down on crazy I did.
What a load of horseshit.
The credibility of the paper is not at issue. They reported what Boelter claimed,; they did not say the claim was true.
So the guy comes out with a ridiculous, fantastic, claim about Walz, and you have become such a gullible sucker that you believe it.
Really, Kazinski? Have you lost your mind?
Where did I say it was true, or say i believed it was true?
I said the Star Tribune is reporting thats what Boelter is asserting.
I am definitely not claiming I am privy to private conversations between the governor and his current and former appointees.
You posted this,
now Boelter has directly implicated Tim Walz, claiming he was acting under Walz's orders writing a "letter addressed to the FBI, alleged assassin Vance Boelter claimed Gov. Tim Walz instructed him to kill U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar so that Walz could run for the U.S. Senate, according to two people familiar with the contents of the letter."
with an air that suggested it was the absolute truth. Not a smidgen of doubt. So stop crawfishing away from what you said. If you thought it was nonsense, which it is, why bother to post it?
Show some fucking integrity, if you are capable.
I said Boelter was claiming that, he is.
That claim directly implicates Walz, if true. I have no idea if its true, or not true, but I will say it is unlikely. There is nothing I said that's untrue.
But you are certainly capable of making up your own mind without any help from me, I hope.
He says his former nutty position is untenable even to him and he’d just like to offer this one!
"That claim directly implicates Walz, if true. I have no idea if its [sic] true, or not true, but I will say it is unlikely. There is nothing I said that's untrue."
IOW, you don't care one whit about the truth or falsity of Mr. Boelter's assertion. To repeat it is accordingly despicable.
Remember, he ran with the story that it was because of her vote against illegal aliens at first. It's a bit embarrassing!
Let's see if we can crowdsource a list of countries (other than Iran, of course) that will now develop nuclear weapons, because nothing short of actually having nukes will protect you from Trump, Putin, and Xi.
Basically you're talking about a country with enough cold, hard financial resources to pull this off, and an enemy to be worried about:
Worried about Putin, doesn't think Trump will protect them: - Finland - Poland - Possibly Azerbaijan
Worried about Xi (and Kim), doesn't think Trump will protect them: - Japan - South Korea - Taiwan, - Australia
Might develop a nuke because of (autocrat) dick-measuring: - Turkey - Azerbaijan (see also above) - Mexico - Brazil
Am I missing anyone?
Yes, of course, I'm forgetting the Gulf
- Saudi - UAE - Qatar
Then again the Saudis reportedly said if Iran got a nuke then they would have to develop their own. But they seem perfectly fine with Israel having one because they aren't insane.
And now Iran will definitely develop a nuke.
Riiight. Blowing up their nuclear labs absolutely advanced that timetable. [/sarc]
I can see how this gives Iran incentive to develop a nuke, if we're pretending that they weren't already working on that. (Which I'm not willing to do.) But people and nations all the time have incentives to do things they fail to do, and having all their work blown up hardly helps them in that effort.
Now, if anybody did anything making it more likely for Iran to develop a nuke, that would be Obama, funding their nuke program with pallet loads of cash.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russian-leader-claims-multiple-countries-prepped-provide-iran-nuclear-weapons-following-us-strikes
Your alt version of the Iran nuclear deal aside, I’m not sure the near term risk has gone down all that much from this action.
Especially given the intel that was ignored that nothing was imminent.
"Earlier today, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council and Vladimir Putin’s right-hand man, let the cat out of the bag:
“What have the Americans accomplished with their nighttime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?” Medvedev questioned in a post on social media. “The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.”
I don't think Medvedev is a useful source for anything. For the last 10 years or so he's been spouting complete nonsense, which in no way seems to represent the Russian government's view about anything.
Iran has its own uranium mines. You can't bomb knowledge out of existence. And it has oil money, unless it closes the Strait of Hormuz. So yes, it will have nukes.
unless there is a regime change.
Also if there's regime change. Why wouldn't an incoming military junta prioritise a nuke over almost anything else?
Sure, you can bomb knowledge out of existence, depending on how widely disseminated it was before you killed the people who had it.
Recently Medvedev has been playing the "bad cop" role. Comply or we nuke you! Then good Mr. Putin doesn't nuke anybody.
"You can't bomb knowledge out of existence."
For many decades the world's non-proliferation policy has been to restrict access to plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Producing weapons grade fissile material is still hard enough that a super genius or nuclear engineering grad student can't put the publicly available knowledge to use.
Countries that supply nukes to others, that are then used, well, "It shall be the policy of the United States that any nuclear weapon launched from Cuba will be considered an attack by the Soviet Union, requiring a full retaliatory strike."
Remember, dictatorships are kleptocracies. Actually starting major shit with the US is not part of the cushy palace business model.
Gaslighto - enlighten us on why obama was giving pallets of cash to iran?
Um. It was Iran's money? Or is that not good enough?
1) a lot of it wasnt irans money 2) Its was also insanely stupid for obama to release any money to the largest sponser of terror in the world - 3) It is insanely stupid for obama to assist in making iran a regional power -
All of it was Iran's money.
Did you think it was a good idea? Geopolitical issues
Giving money to mullahs so they could fund hama, hezbolah, Huothis, etc - a brilliant idea - right!
Giving money to the mullahs in the process of building a nuclear bomb. A brilliant idea - right!
Do you seriously believe the jcpoa was actually going to work long term.
Last year Iran had an incentive to steer a cautious middle course on developing nuclear weapons. Now, there is absolutely no reason why it wouldn't develop a nuclear capability asap. Are you going to stop them?
And, for the record, you don't have to take my word for that. Take it up with Tulsi Gabbard: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/americas-spies-say-iran-wasnt-building-a-nuclear-weapon-trump-dismisses-that-assessment
Remember, some of the biggest military disasters of the last century, from Stalin being surprised by Hitler's attack to the US not finding any WMDs in Iraq, came from top-down intelligence gathering. The one thing you don't want is for the president to tell the spies what their conclusions should be.
Well, now we know how stupid you have to be to confuse "not building a nuclear weapon" with "not preparing to build a nuclear weapon".
I'm not sure who you think you gotcha'ed there.
And yet...and yet...they said all this same stuff about North Korea. Yet one day, oh dear.
That's a hilarious point.
Also useful context: The FT has a chart of the number of installed centrifuges in Iran. See if you can spot when Trump blew up the JCPOA.
https://bsky.app/profile/mrjamesob.bsky.social/post/3lsbconinoc27
The Jpcoa was always a joke
Did you see the chart at the link?
Did you see the growth during the Biden administration
Did you see how the went from about 1,000 centifuges to zero after the jcpoa ? yea - going to zero is certainly a credible assessment - sarc
ever hear of diplomatic double speak
Great analysis.
bookkeeper_joe is an expert!
"FT has a chart"
A chart!
It was a secret military project. Neither you, nor FT, has any idea how many they were installing.
Neither you, nor FT, has any idea how many they were installing.
But you and Joe_Dallas know. And if you don't, where do you get the glib assertion that jpcoa was a joke and a failure?
I mean I know that's what you want to believe, but that's less than convincing evidence.
B11 - do you seriously believe that those pre jcpoa centifuges were destroyed. Displaying a lot of naivetivity .
This accountant has a hunch!
Exactly wrong, Martin. If Finland (remember WWII) wants to hurry up Russian domination just let Putin know you have a nuke.
WWII : Finland believed the Soviet Union wanted to expand into its territory and the Soviet Union feared Finland would allow itself to be used as a base from which enemies could attack.
Am I missing anyone? Ukraine Canada Greenland (Denmark) Panama
Ukraine doesn't have the resources to spare while it's trying to fight off the Russians.
Canada doesn't have an enemy to worry about other than the US, and nuking the US from Canada seems like a terrible idea. Also, diplomatically it seems like quite an escalation for the Canadians to develop their own nuclear capability, unless they have a very good not-worried-about-the-US reason why they need it.
Too expensive for the Danish. And they'd pursue such a thing together with EU allies anyway. That does remind me of someone else missing from my list: Germany.
Panama doesn't have the money.
Martinned:
We have to allow other countries to develop nuclear weapons, or else other countries will develop nuclear weapons!
TwelveInchPianist — That puts Martinned in company with Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Bohr. And you in company with Truman, and a political establishment which was incapable to listen to them.
Don't like how that feels? Accept that the 1940s blunder to touch off a nuclear arms race is baked in now, putting simple solutions beyond reach.
Vote for people who are not closed-minded cultists. Then try to negotiate the world-wide fix the present case requires. Otherwise, it only gets worse from here.
"Taiwan"
We should sell or gift them 6-12 nukes right now.
They could just buy one from North Korea.
Here is a video Bill Clinton explaining (part of) the Israeli logic here: https://bsky.app/profile/implausibleblog.bsky.social/post/3ls6ng4h54s2z
Under Netanyahu, the Israelis have no intention of giving the Palestinians a state, Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office for ever and ever. He's been there for 20 years.
Under Netanyahu, the Israelis have no intention of giving the Palestinians a state,
Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office for ever and ever. He's been there for 20 years.
(Incidentally, Bill Clinton may well be the smartest President the US has ever had. But in other ways he is so, so dumb.)
Very dumb....admits 300 000 Rwandans died because he came in late...admits his shipment of free wheat ruined the livelihood of Haitian farmers (and this man was governor of an agricultural state)
There is widespread agreement the most intelligent dinner that ever occurred in the White House was when Jefferson dined alone.
"Bill Clinton may well be the smartest President the US has ever had"
Recently bias.
Garfield for sure is #1.
Jefferson, Lincoln, Taft, probably others.
Hoover was wicked smart. He translated "De re metallica" and was a successful engineer. Didn't help him govern much though. The Jimmy Carter effect before there was a Jimmy Carter.
This seemed like an insightful observation, from The Economist's Europe correspondent:
The US joining Israel’s Iran war recalls the pre-WW1 era, when powers often entered wars not because they’d been attacked but because someone else had started one against a joint enemy, it was going well, and they wanted in on the game. See eg the pre-1914 Balkan wars.
While the Iranian regime are of course lying dicatorial scum, this seems like a fair question:
Araghchi, Iranian FM: “What negotiating table do you want us to go back to? We never left it!” “Last week, we were negotiating with US & Israel decided to blow up diplomacy. This week we were talking to Europeans & US decided to blow that up too!”
Araghchi, Iranian FM: “What negotiating table do you want us to go back to? We never left it!”
“Last week, we were negotiating with US & Israel decided to blow up diplomacy.
This week we were talking to Europeans & US decided to blow that up too!”
They had their 60 days to talk. Time is up.
Iran is defeated.
That's not what the Vance said on Meet the Press: “We want to end their nuclear program, and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here.”
And no, Iran is not defeated. The regime is still in place, and at this rate it isn't going anywhere. If you're going to go to war with Iran, at least formulate some coherent war aims.
"...at least formulate some coherent war aims." Step one: Destroy Iran's nuclear program. Check!
Your talking points are out of date: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/22/trump-administration-says-it-doesnt-want-regime-change-and-admits-it-may-happen-00417738
This is Israel's war, not America's. America changed the entire strategic calculation of Iran in 27 hours when they removed Iran's enrichment capability, permanently.
Khamenei has named three possible successors in the event Israel punches his ticket. Iran's military is completely ineffective. Iran lies defenseless, as Israel systematically destroys their offensive military capability. But no, Iran is not losing at all. /sarc
My question....where did the enriched nuke material go, and how does one relieve Iran of the burden of keeping it? This is where Russia could be helpful, and help themselves as well.
This is Israel's war, not America's.
SACRILEGE!!! It's the Great Leader's war!
The Congress has not declared war. This was preparedness meeting opportunity, in that Iran has killed thousands of Americans over the last 4 decades, and in return, we destroyed their nuke enrichment capability (disrupting a core part of their strategy).
This action skates at the outermost edge of constitutionality, and I have doubts myself, TBH.
"The Congress has not declared war."
Precisely
...and hasn't since WWII.
“they removed Iran's enrichment capability, permanently”
You should lighten up on this. The “mission accomplished” takes are likely not going to age well.
There was one war aim. It was accomplished. Regime change was not the aim of the US. In fact, it would be a counterproductive idea. As for your believing Araghchi that they never left, I remind you that Persians have been selling carpets for thousands of years.
Eurotrash keyboard warrior spews site with TDS vomit.
A Republic, if you can keep it.
Maybe we should transition to a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, such as the Netherlands?
You definitely should. It would be a major improvement. In my country we don't go to war because one lunatic wakes up one day and says so.
How many "lunatics" does it take?
We have a similar problem that the US does. The Constitution requires a vote in Parliament to declare war (in a joint session, to be precise, meaning that it takes 113 votes in favour), but I can't find a single case of that happening. In 1941 the Kingdom declared war on Japan, but obviously Parliament was suspended due to the occupation. On 26 March 1873 the Netherlands declared war on the Sultan of Aceh, but at the time the King (= government) only had to inform Parliament that he had done so.
These days, military action is dealt with under art. 100 of the Constitution, which says:
1. The Government shall inform the States General in advance if the armed forces are to be deployed or made available to maintain or promote the international legal order. This shall include the provision of humanitarian aid in the event of armed conflict. 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply if compelling reasons exist to prevent the provision of information in advance. In this event, information shall be supplied as soon as possible.
In practice, what this means is that there is a debate in the lower house of Parliament, and that the proposed military action does not happen if a majority "asks" the government not to go ahead. This has been pretty intense in the past. In 2011 the government only barely got the votes it needed for a new mission in Afghanistan.
Your country doesn't go to war because everyone would kick their asses. This is especially true when you consider that the only people they could really go to war with are those directly on their border because they couldn't fight anyone further away than that.
"everyone would kick their asses"
Not fair, they could likely beat Luxembourg.
It would be close but Luxembourg has enough money to hire a bunch of soccer hooligans to defend it.
Luxembourg could hire a bunch of Serbs. Dutch soldiers are already proven to run like little girls from Serbs.
...which is why we have allies. Until recently, we thought that the US was our ally too. For decades we worked hard to maintain our relationship with the US, for example by supporting them even when they started foolish wars. I guess that was a mistake, and the Dutch soldiers who died in Iraq wasted their lives.
Two deaths. Such a huge sacrifice. Lets add in those who died in Afghanistan for 25 more. You guys were sure leading the way.
Tell that to the families of the soldiers who died. Then again, we all know how little respect Trumpists have for veterans and their families...
How many American soldiers died freeing the Netherlands from Nazi control? How many billions of dollars has the USA spent defending the Netherlands over the decades? You talk about 27 deaths as some major sacrifice when I would not be surprised to find out more US service died from accidents while stationed in Europe to defend it. So if Europe or the Netherlands feel the USA is such a bad country maybe the USA should withdraw from NATO. Of course you and most of the Eurpean community would howl like scalded dogs and weep while begging the USA to return. You and the rest of the Eurotrash are pathetic ankle biters who haven't accomplished anything in decades.
In my country we don't go to war...
...because you'd lose to the average Girl Scouts troop.
You don't go to war for the same reason no one in Western Europe has gone to war in 80 years — because the US has a warm, fatherly hand on your shoulder reminding you that you aren't allowed to without our permission.
Prior to that you got conquered by the Nazis in about three days.
I'm looking for an example of a country with an independent foreign policy might want to follow, and the Dutch just aren't providing it.
Must be nice, having an ocean between yourself and anyone who might attack you.
Yeah that sure stopped Japan didn't it? Also ever hear of ICBMs?
Just be glad that the USA haa been willing to cross a big huge ocean to protect the sorry asses in your country for the laat 80 years and counting. Oh and who is Europe counting on to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to defend Ukraine from big bad Russia? Not the Netherlands that is for certain. Hell what has been the Netherlands contribution to the defense of Ukraine?
"Eurotrash keyboard warrior spews site with TDS vomit." You might think that an ankle-biting gutter snipe like Bumble would have, after 3(?) years spamming this website, developed, by osmosis, at least, a recognizable argumentative posture, with or without legal terminology, etc. But you get exactly what you see: an angry 70s something unable to articulate anything other than rank juvenile cheerleading for his 'team' (amusingly and predicably, who don't give a damn about his angry blue collar ass). Don't you have any dignity? You know this is a website for attorneys right?*
* at one point in time at least
Thanks troll. We know you think you're special, but you aren't. You know this is a website for attorneys right?* Wrong.
Editorial Independence
We're a group blog, cofounded by Eugene Volokh and Alexander ("Sasha") Volokh in 2002. Almost all of us are law professors, teaching at various law schools throughout the country. We write mostly about law and public policy, though we feel free to blog about whatever else strikes our fancy.
We're generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these, though we don't toe any party line, and sometimes disagree even with each other.
We are not Reason employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog. We are very pleased to be working with the Reason people, but please don't ascribe our views to them, or vice versa. Naturally, you shouldn't ascribe our views to our employers, either, or even to the other cobloggers. Each blogger speaks only for himself or herself.
You'll also note that the tone of our posts is at times different from that of most traditional newspaper or magazine writing; this too stems from our long history as independent bloggers. Some posts are quite technical, and aimed at our lawyer readers. Many posts are more traditional news analysis, or pass along interesting new legal developments.
And some are humorous, or focus on our hobbies or cultural items that we like. You can expect the blog, as a whole, to be substantive, but individual posts sometimes won't be.
*... before it was linked to the 4chan training ground of Reason.com
Bumble is the apotheosis of the new VC Eugene has worked hard to cultivate
Hello. These is a lot of talk from a certain side of the Congressional aisle that the President broke the law when he bombed Iran. The 1973 War Powers Act seems to me that what he decide to do is well within he role as Commander-In-Chief. Or, am I missing something. And if his actions were legal, then why are so many calling them illegal. I know this is politics, but if they ignore the law and continue say that he broke “something,” what is in it for them?
The American constitution is a mess, and very little of it more so than the distinction between "foreign policy" and "war". And traditionally no one in Congress has any incentive to actually do someting about that, but many people do have an incentive to complain loudly.
It is not a coincidence that the War Powers Act dates from the absolute low point of the popularity of the Vietnam War and President Nixon...
Stupid much? the low point (and high point for Amuricans killed) of the popularity of the Vietnam Wah was 1968, when LBJ couldn't run again (or appear in pubic in most major cities) and the DemoKKKrat's nominated their "Peace" (yeah, right) Candidate, Humbert Horratio Humphrey, who even that Liberal (Dr) Hunter S. Thompson said was a gutless ward healer who should be put out in the Chinese current, took Milhouse 4 yrs to pull out the 600,000 troops LBJ sent to die senselessly(it's called a tactical retreat, in constrast to what Sleepy Joe did in Off-Gone-E-Stan), by the time the "War Powers" law was signed, so had a Peace Treaty, and the only reason for the law was to stick it even worse to Tricky Penis. (who not only was able to run again, won 49 states) Jeez-us, I'm supposed to be the ignorant rube on this Blog
Frank
President Johnson could have run again for President in 1968. Of his own volition, he elected not to do so.
I know LBJ “Could” have run, just like Sleepy Joe “Could” have last year, they were both smart enough to know they’d get humiliated in the General
Hey.
The War Powers Resolution is not long. I didn’t see anything permitting this kind of action. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp
I think there is a lot going on with respect to practice and even some court cases that complicate things, but the WPR along doesn’t permit unilateral bombings when there is no direct imminent threat to the US.
AFAIK no US president has ever accepted that the WPR is constitutional, and in the US there is no way to resolve that dispute.
America is the most litigious society on planet earth. You cannot tell me that there is no way to resolve the dispute. 😉
Who do you think would sue whom in which court to get an answer to the question of whether the WPR is constitutional?
Germany is the most litigious country.
In Germany individual members of the Bundestag could definitely sue in the constitutional court to get a definitive answer to this sort of question. And they probably would, too.
Not no way. Congress could declare this was a war action they did not authorize. They have the power of the purse and can cut funding, or, even further, as they have the power to raise armies, could declare the portions in use inactive, or dissolve them entirely.
I wouldn't hold my breath. Maybe the next generation will introduce some mealy-mouted update to the WPA.
Yes, Congress could do lots of things. It could also impeach Trump for violating the Constitution and/or the War Powers Act. But it's not going to.
That is the first credible thing that you've said this morning, Martin.
The Pig found a Truffle
They could do all that, but none of that would resolve the legal question of the constitutionality of the WPR.
"AFAIK no US president has ever accepted that the WPR is constitutional, and in the US there is no way to resolve that dispute."
Au contraire. Per 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a):
(a)In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11, or in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class or kind of merchandise of a free trade area country (as defined in section 516A(f)(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930), as determined by the administering authority, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.
The War Powers Act imposes consultation and reporting requirements on the President. Accordingly, the President is an "interested party" with standing to ask a United States District Court to declare his "rights and other legal relations" vis-a-vis the Congress in this regard.
Interesting. Who would be the defendant in that case? The United States? Congress?
It's easier for the President to flip the script and wait for someone to prove standing to sue him for violating it.
After prior disputes decades ago commenators opined that neither side wanted to go to court out of fear of losing. Better to have a fleet in being than a decisive engagement.
I agree with you and also feel that the Congress must take back its designated role as the body to declare war. Unfortunately neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to want to take back that responsibility when their person is in the Presidency.
Nor when the other side is. From Congress's perspective, it's a lose/lose to step in, regardless of which party holds the White House.
This war is wildly unpopular among the electorate. (I saw a poll this morning, where I couldn't verify its reliability very well, that put it at 85% opposed and 5% in favour.) But even then a Democratic Congress would conclude that trying to stop Trump from going to war with Iran would be a vote loser, because the only voters who would change their votes in response to such an intervention are the Democratic-voting Israel supporters. All other voting groups either don't care enough, or already vote Republican.
The "electorate" of Iran?
Them too.
Out of curiosity, who is the US National Security Advisor, and shouldn't they have played a role in advising Trump about dropping bombs on Iran?
What makes you think they didn't advise and concur?
The fact that there isn't one?
(Marco Rubio is the acting NSA, just like he's the acting Archivist of the United States and the acting Administrator of USAID, but I don't get the impression that he's actually doing any of these jobs. So basically the office of National Security Advisor seems to be dormant.)
Seems like the job description for NSA pretty much mirrors that of SOS so why have both. Trump seems happy with Little Marco and Biden's NSA (Jake Sullivan) was hardly an example of competence.
Sure, we wouldn't want to risk anyone giving Trump advice he doesn't want to hear, would we?
Why do you assume that Rubio was unaware or had no input?
Because he was still saying that the war aims didn't include regime change until he read he was wrong on Truth Social.
That is a logical disconnect. Regime change is the surest path to war for years. Trump is not going to send US troops to Iran. We actually want the vicious bastards to be stable to some degree.
Ah, I see your mistake. You think that when Trump sits on the toilet with his phone and writes messages on Truth Social, something a mundane as "logic" plays a role in what he says.
Iran has shut down internet access for Iranians. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-858635
Under what circumstance can the US government turn off internet access for Americans, that passes constitutional muster?
Suppose we were attacked successfully with ballistic missiles. Does that change your answer?
I think under Obama he floated this idea. The concept was remote phone-activated bonbs, and they may have to shut it down during a mass incident.
I believe the collective hell no put a stop to it, but who knows what they've done behind the scenes. People need to communicate during an emergency, and in any case, the risk of abuse by the weasel class is monstrous.
Haven't you heard? There's an emergency in the US. What more legal basis do you need?
In 2011 BART shut down cell phone service to deter protests. This NPR story quotes Eugene Volokh: https://www.npr.org/2011/08/16/139656641/cell-service-shutdown-raises-free-speech-questions.
In 2014 California enacted a law requiring a court order to shut down cell phone service. As far as I know there is no legal precedent from the 2011 action.
I'd actually be interested in understanding *how* such a thing would even happen in the US. The internet was built for redundancy and it includes undersea cables, satellites, and radio waves. You would have to block or interfere with DNS, most likely, since the majority of the infrastructure is privately owned. And doing something like this will almost certainly involve some number of people dying as networked health infrastructure or other safety and security related devices fail. (Which immediately brings to mind what it would do to robo-taxis.)
It would seem to me that the best we could do in the short term is significantly degrade connectivity by launching a state-sponsored DDOS attack on critical services. The conditions under which the US government would do that to its own populous are pretty ugly--all out war, civil war, authoritarian coup.
The same way that the government banned Tiktok. By threatening to bankrupt any ISP or telecom company that doesn't play ball.
Don't see what the problem is, Ear-Ron wants a Bomb, we gave them a few.
So in response to the US bombing of their nuclear sites, Iran has threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz. What is the justification for that and how should the world react?
The UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, which neither the US nor Iran has ratified, but which codifies a lot of customary law as well, has an entire section on Straits used for international navigation. Art. 38 UNCLOS guarantees a pretty unqualified right of transit passage. Then again, this is pretty much why Turkey hasn't ratified UNCLOS, because they don't want to recognise such a right for the Bosporus. That suggests that art. 38 UNCLOS does not ratify custom.
Without UNCLOS, Iran can do in its territorial waters what it likes. It doesn't need any justification. Of course, it shares the Straight of Hormuz with Oman, and if Iran carries out military operations in Oman's part of the Straight that would be an act of war against Oman. I can think of no way to make that legal, short of Oman joining the US-Israeli attack on Iran.
Shouldn't we start with what is the legal justification for US's bombing of Iran?
"how should the world react?"
Destroy their navy and shore to ship missiles. Destroy their oil facilities.
Total economic embargo, general; don't forget a total economic embargo.
Making oil prices soar is always a smart political move.
I dunno. In the short term you fill your friends' pockets with cash and in the long term you create additional public chaos. That last bit seems to go hand-in-hand with recent actions to sic the US armed forces on citizens and legal residents exercising their First Amendment rights.
How is that working out for you in Yemen?
I was pulling for the underdog Pacers and Coastal Carolina respectively but congrats to OKC and LSU for winning the NBA finals and College World Series, respectively.
“Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed sweeping legislation Sunday to slap warning labels on potentially tens of thousands of food and beverage packages — a move that could have ripple effects across the country.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/06/23/texas-maha-warning-labels/
Does this include all the prepper supplements that they hock to all our rubes on AM radio?
Donald Trump on Truth Social:
It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!
Do lefties here read that as a call to make Iran a white Christian ethnostate?
I can't purport to speak for any "lefties" that may or may not read this blog, but I think the best way to read this is that Trump shouldn't be allowed a phone.
I'm not sure that greatness in Iran is in the interest of the United States. A great and prospering islamo-terrorist nation.
The most likely scenario involving regime change in Iran is a military junta that emphasises nationalist rhetoric instead of theological rhetoric. How that plays out in the region is anybody's guess.
The next most likely scenario is a Lybia-style permawar. Iran is big and mountainous, with lots of different ethnic groups. It's basically Afghanistan, except much bigger, and with oil and access to the Strait of Hormuz.
The idiots in Washington who are suddenly talking about regime change in Iran, after days of emphasising that that was not the US war aim, don't know what the fuck they're talking about. And they don't care either. All they care about is flattering Trump, so that they can keep running the country behind his back.
CHINA and Russia don't want Iran to have a nuke because we might just give their enemies a few nukes.
Guess you don't remember Iran under the Shah.
You think "regime change" means bringing the Shah back???
I said nothing of the sort.
"bringing the Shah back???"
He's dead Jim
+1
The Shah is dead, long live the Shah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Pahlavi,_Crown_Prince_of_Iran
VANCE: "Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change." HEGSETH: "This mission was not and has not been about regime change." RUBIO: Regime change is "certainly not the goal of what we're working on here."
TRUMP: LOL. LMAO.
I’d say that Trump’s speciality is cutting his slavish supporters off at the knees, but most of them were already on them groveling before him.
No.
Do righties here read that as a call to make Iran a white Christian ethnostate?
Righties aren't the ones who claim MAGA is a call to make the US a white Christian ethnostate, champ.
Is that so?
“Trump has not been shy about what comes next. He ran a presidential campaign that was infused with White Christian Nationalist imagery and rhetoric. He vowed in an October campaign speech to set up a task force to root out “anti-Christian bias” and restore preachers’ power in America while giving access to a group he calls “my beautiful Christians.”
“If I get in, you’re going to be using that power at a level that you’ve never used before,” Trump told an annual gathering of National Religious Broadcasters in Tennessee during a campaign stop earlier this year.
Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 White evangelical voters in November’s presidential election. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants in the US described themselves as sympathizers or adherents to Christian nationalism in a February 2023 survey.”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/01/12/us/white-christian-nationalism-du-mez-cec
See my post below about, "White Nationalist Awarded For Law School Paper Arguing Constitution Only Applies To White People."
This is a serious question:
The Constitution states that no new state can be made out of a portion of an existing state without its approval.
How could/did Congress create West Virginia out of the Virginia counties that remained loyal to the Union? This was 1863 when they weren't on speaking terms with the VA legislature.
During the Civil War various states "sent" delegations to both sets of legislatures. Virginia was one of those, with Union-supporting Virginians being recognized by Congress as the lawful government of the state.
It was Virginia's Unionist government approved of splitting West Virginia off from the rest of the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restored_Government_of_Virginia
That's part of the gray area. For some arguments, they left the union. For others, not so. How do you get approval when they've left already, on their terms?
You don't, nor do you have to. They have no authority to drag unwilling citizens along with them.
This doesn't even get into the idiocy of simple majorities making Constitutional-level decions, as hot aired by seductive demagogues skilled at blowing the transient winds of political passion.
I once pointed out the UK leaving the EU was one such decision, and should be supermajority. Someone else pointed out that's fine, except entering was simple majority, too. My little internal cynic sighed, and said, "Of course."
Because history books are written by the winners?
How could/did Congress create West Virginia out of the Virginia counties that remained loyal to the Union?
Congress didn't create West Virginia out of the Virginia counties that remained loyal to the Union. The Virginia legislature did.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the District Court ruling granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a state statute requiring public schools to permanently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom in Louisiana. https://600camp.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Ten-Commandments.pdf
That ruling notwithstanding, the State of Texas has enacted a similar law purporting to require the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/SB00010I.pdf
When will they ever learn?
When this sort of nonsense results in them losing elections. So I wouldn't hold my breath.
They're trying to play the game. Sometimes they even claim it's historical, or really learning about a religion, which was the same argument made defending a teacher requiring students to recite Muslim tenet prayers, and got court approval.
They literally could claim requiring reciting the 10 Commandments was in a similar vain.
Wait! Let me see which religion's tenets are to be recited by school kids, before I decide it's a great dig to stick in the craw of the opposition, or a constitutional violation.
Bah, vein. This site is so dogged out the 5 minute edit button grayed out before I could do a second edit-save cycle.
They *have* learned.
They're setting this up for an eventual USSC decision in their favor.
Meanwhile, in the country with the BEST FREE SPEECH in the world.
THE US EMBASSY in Dublin is tightening its visa requirements, saying that future applicants looking to visit the country will be required to divulge “list all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last five years” on their visa application form. The embassy also said that it wants people to set their social media profiles to public, reiterating a move announced last week by the US State Department. Visa applicants will also be required to “list all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last five years” on their visa application form, according to the statement released by the embassy this morning.
THE US EMBASSY in Dublin is tightening its visa requirements, saying that future applicants looking to visit the country will be required to divulge “list all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last five years” on their visa application form.
The embassy also said that it wants people to set their social media profiles to public, reiterating a move announced last week by the US State Department.
Visa applicants will also be required to “list all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last five years” on their visa application form, according to the statement released by the embassy this morning.
https://www.thejournal.ie/us-visa-changes-6740830-Jun2025/
Wow, you’re really doubling down on the stupid comments this morning, I’d explain why it’s a good idea but it’d be like explaining Differential Equations to Al Sharpton
And your point is?
That Project 2025 are destroying American liberty.
What do you think it was that destroyed British liberty? Doctrinaire leftism?
So far the British are doing better than you are.
What are you talking about? The Brits are becoming a basket case.
You get more jail time for criticizing Muslim rape and grooming gangs then you do for actually being a Muslim and participating in rape and grooming in the UK.
Cite?
Don't be so damned lazy when you told something that you don't want to hear.
That's our Queenie!, he's too lazy to just jerk himself off like most normal guys do
And still no cite.
"American liberty"
Visa requirements have nothing to do with American liberty.
Not anymore, clearly. I hope you enjoyed your liberty while you had it.
That was not what you were talking about
We need to keep out all the Gaelic Antisemitic Terrorists that didn't vote for Trump
IF Iran responds with terrorism, would Trump be within his rights to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus and simply jail all aliens?
He'd have a mandate...
Define terrorism. We talking typical terrorism, or the terrorism of immigration (excepting the terrorists that pick radishes in Iowa)? Or, like, are we speculating Iran could flood the West with opeds for peace kinda terrorism?
No
Suspending Habeas Corpus is in Article I not II. It is for Congress. Even Lincoln was forced to back down on this point.
Let's say you are President and Iran starts terrorist attacks. You don't have enough agents to round up all aliens. You don't have enough space to hold them all. You don't have enough jailers to guard and feed them. What do you do that is within your capabilities? Assume the Supreme Court is generally on your side but won't let you summarily execute aliens.
"IF Iran responds with terrorism, would Trump be within his rights to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus and simply jail all aliens?"
Uh, no. Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is the prerogative of Congress -- not the executive -- and is expressly conditioned upon "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Article I, § 9. SCOTUS has repeatedly recognized "the longstanding rule requiring a clear statement of congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction." Immigration & Naturalization Service v St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 298 (2001), citing Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 85, 102 (1869) ("We are not at liberty to except from [habeas corpus jurisdiction] any cases not plainly excepted by law").
Geez, Ed. How did you learn how to say so many stupid things?
Talk about a deep dive into stupidity.
"Jail all aliens?" WTF??
You mean, like:
The family that decided it would be interesting to spend some vacation time in the US?
The business man here to strike a deal to import some American products?
The professor here to spend his sabbatical at an American university?
The high school exchange student?
You are fucking insane.
Were you really allowed to teach? Whatever school did that should lose its accreditation.
No. Trump has no authority ("rights" is the wrong word) to suspend Habeas Corpus. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
Marko Milanovic has just published a follow-up on his post about the legality of the Israel-US attacks on Iran, addressing some counter-arguments offered by others. Importantly, he explains what's wrong with the "they've been at war for ages" theory:
As for the first argument, it rests on the academic work of the late Yoram Dinstein and his rather idiosyncratic approach to the relevance of the notion of ‘war’ in the modern jus ad bellum. The argument essentially conflates the ad bellum with the in bello. Here I only need to quote from Mike Schmitt’s post cited above: Although a Dinstein analysis should never be easily dismissed, I do not share his understanding In this case (see also Milanovic). Instead, I support the view preferred by most experts, according to which the jus ad bellum and the law of armed conflict are distinct bodies of law (see also Sassoli and Mačák) that apply in tandem. I am not suggesting that every operation must be independently assessed against the self-defense criteria; such a standard would be operationally unworkable. Indeed, so long as future operations are reasonably foreseeable and hostilities have been relatively uninterrupted, there is a continuing right of self-defense. And the very existence of hostilities can bolster the case for satisfaction of the anticipatory self-defense criteria discussed above. But when a significant shift in the nature of the conflict occurs, as is the case with the targeting of Iran’s nuclear assets following a relative lull in the fighting, it is appropriate to reassess whether there is a basis for that particular use of force and whether it complies with the conditions of proportionality and necessity (see also Greenwood, p. 223). To this I would only add that the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion on the occupation of Palestinian territories very much supports the proposition that an ad bellum self-defence assessment is a continuing one, not one that is done only at the moment an armed conflict arises (see more Milanovic, ‘The Notion of an Illegal Occupation in the ICJ’s Palestine Advisory Opinion,’ ICLQ (forthcoming)). As for the second argument – that Israel was subject to an ongoing armed attack by Iran in the sense of Article 51 of the Charter – I would simply reiterate the points I made in the comments discussion to my original post. Frankly it defies even common sense to say that on, say, 11 or 12 June, Iran was attacking Israel. On the contrary, as Cohen and Shany themselves say in the opening of their post cited above, it was Israel that attacked Iran on 13 June. This is just reality. Even if there was an ongoing attack by Iran against Israel, it was one of such low intensity that the response we see now could not satisfy any reasonable conception of necessity and proportionality. Those who argue otherwise would, I imagine, also consider that a few weeks ago India or Pakistan (depending on who you think started that conflict) would have had the right, while acting in self-defence, to attack the nuclear programme of their adversary. This is an argument that essentially renders any necessity/proportionality analysis meaningless.
As for the first argument, it rests on the academic work of the late Yoram Dinstein and his rather idiosyncratic approach to the relevance of the notion of ‘war’ in the modern jus ad bellum. The argument essentially conflates the ad bellum with the in bello. Here I only need to quote from Mike Schmitt’s post cited above:
Although a Dinstein analysis should never be easily dismissed, I do not share his understanding In this case (see also Milanovic). Instead, I support the view preferred by most experts, according to which the jus ad bellum and the law of armed conflict are distinct bodies of law (see also Sassoli and Mačák) that apply in tandem. I am not suggesting that every operation must be independently assessed against the self-defense criteria; such a standard would be operationally unworkable. Indeed, so long as future operations are reasonably foreseeable and hostilities have been relatively uninterrupted, there is a continuing right of self-defense. And the very existence of hostilities can bolster the case for satisfaction of the anticipatory self-defense criteria discussed above. But when a significant shift in the nature of the conflict occurs, as is the case with the targeting of Iran’s nuclear assets following a relative lull in the fighting, it is appropriate to reassess whether there is a basis for that particular use of force and whether it complies with the conditions of proportionality and necessity (see also Greenwood, p. 223).
Although a Dinstein analysis should never be easily dismissed, I do not share his understanding In this case (see also Milanovic). Instead, I support the view preferred by most experts, according to which the jus ad bellum and the law of armed conflict are distinct bodies of law (see also Sassoli and Mačák) that apply in tandem.
I am not suggesting that every operation must be independently assessed against the self-defense criteria; such a standard would be operationally unworkable. Indeed, so long as future operations are reasonably foreseeable and hostilities have been relatively uninterrupted, there is a continuing right of self-defense. And the very existence of hostilities can bolster the case for satisfaction of the anticipatory self-defense criteria discussed above. But when a significant shift in the nature of the conflict occurs, as is the case with the targeting of Iran’s nuclear assets following a relative lull in the fighting, it is appropriate to reassess whether there is a basis for that particular use of force and whether it complies with the conditions of proportionality and necessity (see also Greenwood, p. 223).
To this I would only add that the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion on the occupation of Palestinian territories very much supports the proposition that an ad bellum self-defence assessment is a continuing one, not one that is done only at the moment an armed conflict arises (see more Milanovic, ‘The Notion of an Illegal Occupation in the ICJ’s Palestine Advisory Opinion,’ ICLQ (forthcoming)).
As for the second argument – that Israel was subject to an ongoing armed attack by Iran in the sense of Article 51 of the Charter – I would simply reiterate the points I made in the comments discussion to my original post. Frankly it defies even common sense to say that on, say, 11 or 12 June, Iran was attacking Israel. On the contrary, as Cohen and Shany themselves say in the opening of their post cited above, it was Israel that attacked Iran on 13 June. This is just reality. Even if there was an ongoing attack by Iran against Israel, it was one of such low intensity that the response we see now could not satisfy any reasonable conception of necessity and proportionality. Those who argue otherwise would, I imagine, also consider that a few weeks ago India or Pakistan (depending on who you think started that conflict) would have had the right, while acting in self-defence, to attack the nuclear programme of their adversary. This is an argument that essentially renders any necessity/proportionality analysis meaningless.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-illegal-israeli-american-use-of-force-against-iran-a-follow-up/
To summarise:
- Whether an armed conflict is ongoing is a factual question, and saying that this armed conflict was ongoing from last year through to now is silly.
- Self-defence analysis (or other ius ad bellum analysis) is also necessary when the nature of an existing armed conflict shifts significantly, as it did here.
I feel like I'm listening to a pack of robed mice debating what sort of bell the cat should wear.
Without access to highly classified intelligence I don't know if the cat needs a bell.
Fortunately the people who do have access to highly classified intelligence explained in Congressional testimony that Iran was nowhere near having a workable nuclear weapon. And that's pretty much all that's legally relevant.
That'd be comforting if they weren't the same ones who said Afghanistan's Government was stable and could hold off the Taliban
The Frank Fakeman character performed here is being written as ignorant that they are not the same ones. At least this iteration is consistent with past ones!
Martin, 1) You did not see the written words in the so-called IC opinion. 2) Trump had in-close advice from the DCI. 3) Just because there were no order to build a weapon, "nowhere near having a workable nuclear weapon" is false even based on open access information from the IAEA. 4) Iran has had credible scientist working in their weapons related program for more than 20 years. They had tested implosions of uranium system in 2003. Iran has beaucoup metallic depleted uranium. They could have build a full scale mock-up with that and still not "have a workable weapon" or be in defiance of Khamenei's fatwa. What would be needed to make a weapon in that case? Do an implosion test of the U-28 mock-up with pin diagnostics. In copy #2, swap out the U-238 with HEU. Connect the detonators. And it is done. That is not "nowhere near having a workable nuclear weapon." So, please don't go quoting what you don't know. Actual words in these documents matter.
2) Trump had in-close advice from the DCI.
He did. He told the DCI to tell him Iran had nukes, and she did. Funny how that goes.
As for your 3 and 4, it doesn't matter. The fact that Iran might have nukes in a year or two is no excuse for bombing them now. Even more shockingly, if Iran had nukes today it would be an excuse for bombing them. (If it was, everyone would be free to take shots at Israel, which definitely does have nukes.)
I get that you want a different rule for the US and other countries you like, and another rule for the rest, but that's simply not what law is.
Thank you, John. But Martin and friends don't care about that.
A waste of pixels. Nobody cares.
I read in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, that two Wisconsin lawmakers are introducing a bill to allow AI translators to replace interpreters in legal trials. The object is to bring down rising costs for human translators at trials. Reading in the VC about the problem with AI writing legal briefs and other problems with AI being used to writing, make me wonder if the idea of AI translators is a good idea? There have been appeals based on faulty translating in court cases and I wonder if AI would simply lead to more of these appeals?
BTW: This issue reminds me of the Monty Python sketch about the about the fake English to whatever dictionaries. I will always remember the translated phrase "my hovercraft is full of eels".
Who says the human interpreters don't make similar errors?
If you don't understand the nuances of a legal proceeding, how do you translate it?
Understanding the nuances of the law is the responsibility of the people who understand the law. That would be the lawyers and the judges. Speaking to an English fluent person lawyers and judges are expected to translate the nuances to common language. Now the interpreter is expected to translate the English common language legal meaning to another language. The biggest advantage I see is that if the interpreter being human can question the lawyer and request a better explanation. Will AI do this or just translate and leave the client confused?
Follow-up: would you accept an AI language interpreter for your client or insist on a human one?
AI isn't ready to do this today (AFAIK) but will be very shortly. All of the knowledge and finesse in the law can be captured by AI within a reasonable confidence level for the purpose of translation. If it fails, we already have a mistrial process.
I'd be more curious about how it might translate sign language, since that is a tougher problem.
Knowledge-based careers (like mine) are going to shrink dramatically within the next 20 years as AI starts to fill in the simpler tasks through to the rote but complex ones. In my field, you'll find most programming jobs are gone and those remaining are mostly working on improving AI or writing novel software with AI assistance.
When was the last time you sent something to a "typing pool?"
Shawn, For deaf jurors, there has been a push here in California to use close-captioning for jurors, rather than sign language interpreters. Obviously, for this to work, the juror must have a sufficiently high level of education/reading comprehension. Google "CART California" for more info on this, if you're interested." I had to fight to get sign language interpreters (as opposed to the use of a captioning system) when I had deaf clients in Children's Court for my first few such cases. But I don't think I've had any pushback from judges in 10+ years on this issue.
That would be a huge loss for Freudian slips
I wish to fondle your bum.
Putin Ally Says Countries Now Ready to Supply Iran With Nuclear Weapons
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-says-countries-now-ready-supply-iran-nuclear-weapons-2088979
I guess Russia really, really needs Iran.
Its almost like Russia is rooting for regime change.
Meanwhile, China is telling Iran to not close the Strait of Hormuz. That takes Iran's most effective retaliation option off of the table.
Nope, America is energy dominant thanks to Biden and so high energy prices are good for America. Wake up! It’s no longer 2008. 😉
I am a bit surprised that some rogue country with nuclear weapons has not already sold one to Iran. Is does seem that nuclear powers resist giving or selling what they have to others.
Which "rogue countries" are you thinking of? North Korea and who else?
But yes, while a country might supply nuclear know-how to another country, sharing nukes themselves is probably seen as imprudent. There's too great a risk that you'll be held responsible if the other country (mis)uses it.
What could happen to NK if they're "held responsible" for sharing a nuclear weapon with Iran? The only country that could really do that is China, otherwise, NK is largely untouchable.
I thought Iran wanted nuclear energy and not weapons.
Amusing that you REALLY believe Russia will give them nukes when they would not give them anti-aircraft missiles.
“A federal judge in San Antonio has ruled that the state of Texas for decades unnecessarily institutionalized 4,500 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in nursing home facilities, denying them appropriate services that are required under federal law.”
https://www.tpr.org/public-health/2025-06-22/judge-rules-texas-has-been-illegally-placing-people-with-severe-disabilities-in-nursing-homes-for-decades
Well, when Texas hayseeds are past their prime, we have to store them somewhere.
One day Karma's gonna tap dance all over your nappy haid'
The Frank Fakeman character performed here by a sad weirdo is being written to be very touchy about someone else’s edgelording. Writing needs more consistency here.
White Nationalist Awarded For Law School Paper Arguing Constitution Only Applies To White People
A white nationalist recently won an academic award for his law school paper arguing how the constitution (sic) only applies to white people.
Preston Damsky, a proud white nationalist and antisemite, garnered acclaimed from a University of Florida professor over his paper detailing his interpretation of the doctrine. Last fall, he wrote the paper on “originalism” for the law school seminar. An idea upheld by many conservatives, originalism interprets the constitution as written during its original time period.
According to the New York Times, a Trump-appointed judge who taught the class awarded Damsky the highest honor for his paper. In his assignment, Damsky argued that “We The People,” as first written on the Constitution’s Preamble, actually refers to white people. With this mindset, he defended the idea of stripping voting rights for nonwhite citizens.
However, Damsky’s academic language did not continue on the internet. Months after the dean’s decision, Damsky created an X account to further showcase his views. His post that Jewish people must be ” abolished by any means necessary,” led to his latest scandal.
The jarring remark led to the University of Florida suspending him and barring him from campus. The University even boosted police presence at the law school. However, others believe the initial celebration of his works empowered Damsky to become even louder with his racist beliefs.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/white-nationalist-awarded-for-law-school-paper-arguing-constitution-only-applies-to-white-people/ar-AA1HcELa?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=e6aa034c808f4af5a4ff83adcff41d93&ei=82
Go big or go home, amirite?
You should take this comment to one of Josh Blackman's posts on the topic.
How is this different from critical race theory? Or even some of the things that KJB has said, and she's on SCOTUS...
And the other issue is that morally right and legally correct are not the same thing. I teach Dredd Scott as the case that cause the Civil War, but then I am teaching US History and not Constitutional Law. (How do law professors teach it?)
And are there no Jewish law professors able to explain why he is wrong?
“How is this different from critical race theory?”
So close.
Dred Scott is like 10/7, an act of desperation by a people that know history is passing them by. But Dred Scott was 100% correct because America was founded as a white supremacy nation. That’s why the 1619 Project is wrong but the 1836 Project would be 100% correct. Texas like America was founded as a white supremacy nation.
Is anyone else experiencing slow or no connection with this site?
Yes. I assumed it was me.
Pretty much every day up in this bitch. The servers at Reason suck
Oil's up 12% since the start of the Israel/US/Iran war. And oil is speculated to pass $100/barrel. Music to my ears. Does what is happening affect the costs my company incurs to produce oil? Nope. Are we going to gouge the consumers anyway? Absolutely! But look at the bright side, hayseeds. With all these fat stacks of cash we've extracted from the rubes, we will finally restart doing what you hoped for: drill baby drill!
Don't worry, Trump is on it: https://bsky.app/profile/craigipedia.bsky.social/post/3lsbpm7q55c2g
Can you link to a non-shithole hate site?
I did.
...and it's down slightly, so far, today. All the other markets are up. Gold up slightly. So what's your point?
Because we don't Drill Baby Drill just because you tell us to in your campaign speeches. Drill Baby Drill requires lots and lots of pain at the pump first. Oh? Your political heroes fail to tell you that part? Of course they did. You know, 'Suckers and Losers' doesn't just apply to the military.
What Drill Baby Drill requires, that Trump has no way of supplying, is confidence that, the next time Democrats are in control, they won't point the power of the government at oil companies, and command, "Cap, Baby, Cap".
We are not a high trust society anymore when it comes to investments Democrats don't like. An investment might make enormous sense in isolation, but if it's something Democrats might take it into their heads to ban any time before the investment has had time to pay off, nobody dares to make it.
You rule, through fear and uncertainty, even when you're not in power, because everybody knows you'll casually bankrupt any industry you disapprove of.
Biden made us energy dominant after Trump bankrupted the fracking industry in 2020. That’s another reason Trump struck Iran—because the price spike in energy is good for Republican energy producers just like in 2022.
Brett you want to talk a hit ending investments for partisan reasons and point at the Dems?
Dems kept defense spending. Kept the Trump tariffs famously. Commercial space. Facial recognition, both GOP darlings and kept by Dems. I don’t recall oil subsidies ending, and fracking was kept a local decision.
Meanwhile Trump is ending everything a Dem touched out of spite.
You and your telepathy really got a distorted worldview.
There is a fix.
Do not lease/rent the land.
Sell the land with the oil.
Oh dear, Brett. You seem to be very misinformed. So let me give you the 411 straight from the horse's mouth. No administration - Rep or Dem - has ever commanded or even insinuated Cap Baby Cap. Nor do we feel any fear or intimidation. Maybe a pipeline here or there gets delayed, otherwise we drill where we want and when we want. Always have.
When prices are low we have absolutely no incentive or desire to drill more. When the price is high we will consider more drilling. As it stands, we already have way too much capacity currently. We don't need to drill anymore. If we opened the spigots fully on all the reserves we're currently sitting on, we'd crash the market. So we decide how much oil we are gonna send you, Brett. We'll let you know if we we think you need any more or less. Just depends on how much money we want to make in a given month or year.
Silly and uninformed post.
FIRST DAY OF HIS PRESIDENCY Nov 22, 2022 — On President Biden's first day in office, he shut down the Keystone XL pipeline
And (because his main reason was to piss enemies off ) he also
Feb 25, 2021 — Yesterday, President Biden ordered the revocation of the Executive Order, “Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture
Pipelines, beautiful buildings the foolish man only acts from hate. i
Nov 22, 2022 — On President Biden's first day in office, he shut down the Keystone XL pipeline
Strictly speaking, he did not, since it was never operating so it couldn't be shut down.
I just heard DOWN TO $73/barrel and what no one is really saying is that the price of crude, as a percentage of the price of gasoline, has fallen in the past 40 years. Part of this is a lack of refining capacity.
Last refinery built in the US was in 1954. One just shut down in Houston that was first built in 1904 because no one was building the parts to repair the equipment anymore. Then there is the problem that CA has some crazy rules about changing the mixture in gasoline as the seasons change which means refineries can't just produce gas, it has to have different specific additives for different seasons. Don't get me started about how ethanol not only rots the gaskets in ICEs but reduces gas milage and takes significant energy to produce. Gotta keep those rent seekers happy by filling their pockets.
Well, they murdered that guy with the car that ran on Water, so who's going to compete with them?
LOL! It's a great time to be an illegal alien in Denver, Colorado. A city employee? Not so much. I admire the city for putting their tax-payer's money where their city officials mouths are. For the Cause everything, comrade!
Anyone still up for tacos?
That was a tariffs thing, ya goof.
“President Donald Trump's trade war tactics earned him the new nickname - "TACO Trump" - that continues to gain popularity among Wall Street investors”
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2025/06/13/why-do-they-call-trump-taco-people-are-calling-what-is-taco-trade-trump-always-chickens-out-meaning/84169623007/#
That was how the name started, but it since has spread to his handling of Iran:
How Tehran Might Be Playing Trump: The mullahs of Iran join the bet that Trump always chickens out.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/iran-trump-taco-play/683271/
TACO Trump still struggling with Iran decision, part deux
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/21/2329247/-Abbreviated-Pundit-Roundup-TACO-Trump-still-struggling-with-Iran-decision-part-deux
Yep. I sure didn’t know which way he’d jump. I knew the intel wouldn’t be part of his calculus, nor the opinions of anyone in his cabinet.
TV ratings was certainly part of his thinking, it always is. But then there is how it would play on Truth Social, and wanting to use that cool advanced neato bomb.
Which irresponsible and purely personal impulse would rule? Not even Trump knew that.
TACO always struck me as financial market cope. It’s not even reliable for tariffs.
I gave up trying to divine what Trump would do a long time ago.
I just had to accept that Trump is chaos.
And yet you support him?
That’s messed up.
Now for the twist:
I never supported him.
Tell us why.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/23/monday-open-thread-111/?comments=true#comment-11100231
Taco Tuesday Sharts Wednesday
Tyler is still defending Biden, the smart savvy in charge President we all needed. Don't remembet too much praise for Kamala though. Maybe he's just embarrassed at what he has to defend on here 🙂
I can't think of a time where I ever defended Biden.
He's very much like Trump except with more dementia and better handlers.
Huh, I genuinely didn’t know about that. Well, that’s pretty dumb because Trump won’t hesitate in lawless phoney tough stunts. Just nutty economic policy.
The article written before the bombs were dropped?
You're shit at this.
You should read his post.
JD Vance called Trump and Bush “dumb”! He’s right that Trump was dumb to get manipulated by McMaster in 2017 and escalate the Afghanistan War…but unlike Bush Trump knows when to turn tail and he wised up in February 2020 and surrendered to the Taliban. So Vance is mostly correct but a little wrong.
Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP’s attempt to limit courts’ contempt powers
The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against a controversial provision in the Senate Republicans’ megabill that would have made it significantly more difficult for courts to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration.
The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that limiting courts’ ability to hold Trump officials in contempt violated the Senate’s rules governing what can be passed with a simple-majority vote on the budget reconciliation fast track.
Basically, you can't stuff non-budget garbage into a budget bill and reconcile Senate and House on a simple majority.
I wonder where Ms. Elizabeth was when they passed Obamacare by gutting an already passed bill.
She became Senate parliamentarian in 2012, two years after Obamacare was enacted.
Whether gutting an unrelated bill passed by the House as the means for complying with the Constitution's requirement that revenue-related bills originate in the House is not an issue for the Senate parliamentarian.
A provision instituting a 10 year ban on regulating AI - totally revenue related says Ms. Elizabeth. Giving bonuses to agencies who cut costs? Not so, according the Ms. Elizabeth.
Liberals have no principles and should be ejected from all positions of power.
You may not like her rulings, but she hasn't been partisan in them. Among her rulings have been 1) opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling comes under reconciliation, 2) a $15 minimum wage could not, and 3) providing amnesty to the unlawfully present could not.
Isn't the AI regulation ban imposed as Spending Clause regulation, not Commerce Clause preemption? That way it has some nexus with budgets, especially if the funding is newly provided (as opposed to existing programs).
There is a consensus that a House-originating revenue bill can be amended with unrelated revenue-relating matters in the Senate. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
This statement shows that the tariff bill of which the section under consideration is a part originated in the House of Representatives, and was there a general bill for the collection of revenue. As originally introduced, it contained a plan of inheritance taxation. In the Senate, the proposed tax was removed from the bill, and the corporation tax, in a measure, substituted therefor. The bill having properly originated in the House, we perceive no reason in the constitutional provision relied upon why it may not be amended in the Senate in the manner which it was in this case. The amendment was germane to the subject matter of the bill, and not beyond the power of the Senate to propose.
The initial bill for the ACA, as originally passed in the House, was the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. This is a revenue bill.
The reconciliation part of ACA, HCERA, was first proposed in the House.
Yes, there's a consensus in Congress that Congress can violate the provisions of the Constitution that control what Congress can do. They also violate the quorum clause on a routine basis. Go figure.
And the courts full of judges confirmed by Congress agree to not enforce them! Enrolled bill rule, if the Congressional leadership say everything is fine, the judiciary will refuse to look at any evidence that they're lying.
But it's still a violation, even if everybody in a position to do anything about it doesn't care. It just demonstrates that it's a structural flaw to have a judiciary chosen at the federal level deciding if the federal government is obeying the Constitution.
The only thing stupider than whatabouting is completely fucking ignorant whatabouting. (On Twitter the other day, Justin Amash denounced Trump's illegal initiation of war against Iran. And some retard said, "Well, where were you when Obama was attacking Libya?" Prompting Amash to post links to like 10 different tweets where he denounced Obama's attack on Libya.)
When does Josh Blackman get an invitation to take his crazy elsewhere?
When nominates him to the 5th circuit?
Well, end of the month finally going to pull the trigger on moving from Boston to NYC, I've gotten really sick of Boston and got everything set up to move. So July 4th weekend back in NYC, should be fun. Hopefully, y'all don't elect the communist in the meantime.
Amazon, working for them is just ... incredibly depressing, its been made clear to me that there is no opportunity for advancement anymore as a software engineer (and they just gaslight you and lie to you repeatedly its insane), and I am hopeful the job application I am almost at the finish line with in NYC works out. Such is life
What do you find bad about Boston?
One report has it in the world's top 10 cities.
https://dailyvoice.com/ma/wayland/boston-among-worlds-top-10-cities-worcester-breaks-top-200-in-new-study-heres-why/
I hear it's located in Massachusetts.
Its difficult to explain, but I guess: Cities very liberal, and NYC is as well, but the difference for me is that I can live in NYC. Its the area I grew up near, I feel like when Im there I understand things. And there is a lot to do and see, Boston I feel like I saw everything the first day I was here.
Public transits very nice and clean. But it doesn't work often, randomly, and it causes hourlong delays in getting back from work. And Im just constantly tired and pissed off here.
And Idk if moving will improve that but I really need a change in scenery.
After NYC, no other American city can compare.
Wait til the Jew hating socialist takes office.
If he hates Jews so much why is his cross-endorsement Brad Lander?
Ideology over desire I guess.
You seem to buy his BS on "Globalize the Intifada".
I think you just throw out the word “Jew-hater” way too casually to the point of offensiveness.
You are a liar who has no basis for this other than me disagreeing with how the current Israeli government conducts operations in Gaza and disagreeing with the Kahanists.
"Kahanists"
How would I get the idea you support Israel's enemies? Its a mystery.
Does supporting Israel’s enemies mean I have to praise Baruch Goldstein?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir
Or do you think having a picture of Baruch Goldstein on your wall is perfectly defensible behavior? Would it be a smear to suggest you support mass-murder?
BTW even David Bernstein thinks Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are awful. Are you saying that Bernstein supports Israel’s enemies too?
Your buddy the mayor candidate was campaigning with Hasan Piker, who was wearing a 9/11 was an inside job shirt.
Do you think having wearing such a shirt is perfectly defensible behavior?
1. Not my buddy.
2. I don’t like Hasan Piker or the dirtbag left. So it’s not defensible.
Okay now that you can’t answer a question with a bad faith question of your own you should answer mine. If you can.
Or I’ll just ask you straight up: Do you the massacre at the Cave of the Patriarchs was good, yes or no?
Meir Kahane? Personal Hero, but that's just me
Are you actually talking about all five boroughs, or just Manhattan?
Six boroughs. Don't forget Boca Raton.
Anti-Semitism lives loudly in you!
No city is without its less desirable areas. In the case of NYC, it's called "Staten Island" (aside from Ocean Breeze).
In Montgomery Alabama it's called "Montgomery Alabama"
Cities are a vibe.
I grew up in NYC. I find it weirdly boring now.
My rankings:
San Fran (though haven’t been there in a decade I hear I may need to reassess…but it was so pretty with those hills!) Sacramento (no one goes there so no one knows it’s fun and funky) Chicago Washington metro (Arlington > SE > NW > Alexandria) Boston LA NYC.
I’m shamefully bicoastal and haven’t lived anywhere else.
Haven’t seen much of California but I did once fly to LA, duck out of a conference I was there for, and just used the company paid for Cadillac rental car (I still have no idea how I convinced them I needed that car) to drive around the city all day. It was one of the most fun experiences I’ve ever had. Went down to Long Beach and just drive along the coast it’s so pretty.
Don’t think I can live there but it’s a great time
I’m in it for the weather. But it has good theatre too. It at least gestures towards having a culture. I saw Bringing Up Baby projected onto a tomb in the Hollywood Cemetery.
The coastal highway is an amazing drive. The last time I spent any significant time there I went out of my way to rent a convertible, just because, if you're going to drive HW1, what else would you drive?
Best comment I'm going to read today!
There's a significant blockage on PCH near Monterey. Rock slides are always a problem along that road and the more extreme weather we've been getting hasn't improved that at all. Having said that, I agree that PCH is amazing. I've driven it (as an adult) from San Diego to Eureka. The best part, IMHO, is from Ventura to Santa Barbara around the Rincon at sunrise when the moon is setting over the Channel Islands.
I went to Sacramento for the first time last July. One or two funky areas but a ton of shit-holes.
Chicago is just too northerly, otherwise it would be great. I like Philadelphia
Back when I had the Glaucoma, Sacramento had the best Marriage-a-Juan-a "Dispensaries", Jeez, I still get emails from Perfect Union, now I've been told I have a drinking problem, (I drink, I get drunk, no problem!) I've had "Lost weekends" (More like a "Lost 1992") but some stuff from PU sent me to the B-Jesus belt (HT C Spangler) for a whole Labor day weekend, my Motel Room's in Yuba City, why am I in Escondido??? Much better now
Lived in DC for about 5 years , worst place I ever lived . Gays, violence, no peace and quiet, everybody sizing you up on your view of the headlines on the 5 newsboxes on every corner. And the highschool my daughter went to : SHIT
SF is getting a lot of bad press but most of it is blown out of proportion and has more to do with the city being used as a proxy for "liberals." We have a new mayor, who is a scion of the Levi Co family and more conservative than past mayors. The work-from-home trend hit us hard and emptied out downtown and impacted nightlife and shopping there. That trend is reversing and the AI firms are buying up huge chunks of office space. Neighborhood shopping experiences improved as the WFH crowd shopped local; that may resist change. We've opened quite a few new parks and expanded bike lanes and pedestrian-only areas.
If you do come to visit, come in the Fall when the fog is mostly gone and you don't need a jacket.
Most of SF is just fine, but the worse parts have gotten much worse, lately.
Seeing the mission after living there in the 90's was a shock - new fancy three story buildings with apartments above and boutique shops at street level.
Long ago I was taking a shared van to the airport and the other passengers were a retired couple from Perth. They saved up their money and once a year would visit somewhere around the world and photograph natural wonders. That year they decided to see the famous SF fog. Unfortunately they came in October...
So Iran fired multiple missiles at Al Udeid Base in Qatar.
The regime wants to commit suicide.
I have a feeling Iran's navy is going to visit the bottom of the ocean. Which would be a godsend in this heat.
Did either Al Udeid or the base(s) in Iraq that also got hit participate in the bombing of Iran?
This seems like the kind of escalation that hypocritical Eurotrash should condemn.
I am a time traveler sent back through time to prevent the apocalypse, Trump needs to listen to the crazy slut MTG!! I know it sounds nutz but the crazy slut is right about bombing Iran! Can you relay this message to Trump and hopefully it will get to him before he bombs Iran! The crazy slut MTG ushers in a millennium of peace and polyamory in my timeline. Oh yeah, load up on condoms and Valtrex!
Some twitter talk that it was a pre-arranged show. Like Plains Indians counting coup. Seems risky for Qatar to agree since Iranian targeting is iffy so IDK.
We should unleash the vaunted Qatar air force. I think the IAF has cleared the skies sufficient so they can operate safely.
It is. I don’t think any Iranians were killed in our strike.
From the AP:
Iran said its missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar matched the number of bombs dropped by the United States on Iranian nuclear sites this weekend, signaling Iran’s likely desire to de-escalate.
I guess it's a way to save some face while still showing submission.
Looks like it,
Hope it works.
Qataris are Shia bros with Iran. I doubt they'll respond or even grouse too much about an attack on the infidel's base. However, with all quid they ponied up to the Trump Clan, they don't want to jeopardize the coming quo. So maybe they will respond
I'd love to see the look on your face (in the several seconds a severed head maintains consciousness) after you call a Qatari "Bro"
Pretty sure no? The B-2s definitely did not. The other aircraft firing on other targets, I don't think so. There were a lot of aircraft carriers in the area.
I guess "2" could be considered "a lot" not really "a lot" of Aircraft Carriers, a lot of Air Power
I don't think so, Bob. Iran issued a warning to minimize or avoid any casualties. Hopefully that means that this was performative saving face.
Possibly/probably for domestic consumption.
"performative saving face"
Yes, it looks that way.
Its weird though. If you advertise its fake, how much are you saving face? I know the mullahs took down the internal internet, but its not like people there won't find out.
You'll notice that Trump responded by thanking Iran and suggesting that he will try to move toward further deescalation.
It’s grimly amusing to me how you huckleberries can correctly identify certain elements of kayfabe in ongoing events, but seem psychologically unable to take the next logical step and apply that skepticism to the actions of other involved parties, particularly orange-colored ones. One extremely obvious hint came almost immediately!
“ […] Trump declared the mission a complete success.
But rather than relying on information from his own intelligence agencies, satellite imagery, or on-the-ground reporting, Trump instead posted on Truth Social a screenshot of an X post from an anonymous account that claims to conduct open source intelligence investigations.
‘Fordow is gone,’ the account, which lists the website of a Zionist clothing company in its biography, wrote, providing no further information. Trump followed this up by claiming in a press conference that Fordow had been “completely and totally obliterated.”
https://www.wired.com/story/donald-trump-sean-hannity-disinformation-iran-bombing/
The Iranians have never been very bright. If they had just bought up a bunch of Trump Clan crypto like the other gulfs states and the Chicoms did, the bombings would stop. Hell, with a big enough stake Trump would probably start bombing Israel (all are welcome under the Trump bus).
"It is the tendency of all parties, when invested with power, to disregard constitutional restraints; but when removed from power, they become the most zealous champions of those very limits they had formerly despised." John C. Calhoun
Very apt...for 'ALL parties'
A man wrong on the 3 great issues of his day : States Rights, concurrent Majority, and slavery.
A friend related some training from his days in the army, concerning handling of POW's. His company split in two, with one half being prisoners and the other guards, and switching after two days. The guards, even knowing they would shortly be in the prisoner position, abused the crap out of the other half, because they could.
Interesting observation from the jury foreman in the Karen Read trial. He was growing up black in Boston when Charles Stuart blamed his wife's murder on a black man from the projects. Now he has a better appreciation of the presumption of innocence.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/06/20/karen-read-jury-foreman-breaks-silence-after-grueling-retrial/
I think there's a simpler Hemodynamic explanation for a Black Man's tumescent feelings toward a hot blonde white chick (haven't done any googling or watched any of the coverage, my Frankie/Spidey Sense tells me Karen Reed has to be pretty hot, I'd be tumescent too. Frank PS: Broke my own rule and Googled, She's "Hot" or at a minimum, she's not "Not Hot"
Several New York cities sued Hyundai and Kia for making cars that could be stolen by traditional means instead of providing an electronic engine immoblizer. The cities want compensation for the consequences of car theft. On Friday the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 that the state law negligence claim was not preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114 and asked the New York of Appeals whether Kia owed a state law duty to plaintiff cities. (The case was sent to California by the panel on multidistrict litigation.)
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/20/24-2350.pdf
I would rule for the defendants here because the plaintiffs want to impose a stricter rule than the federal government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards preempt any state law that is not identical. FMVSS 114 covers the subject matter of theft prevention. The essence of the rule is
Each vehicle must have a starting system which, whenever the key is removed from the starting system prevents: (a) The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) Either steering, or forward self-mobility, of the vehicle, or both.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section-571.114
Wow, the markets really reacting to “45/47(48?)” and his weekend bombing. Maybe we should bomb Ear-Ron every weekend
June 23, 2025 "CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE! It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!)..." "... for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, ENDED! Officially, Iran will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 12th Hour, Israel will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 24th Hour, an Official END to THE 12 DAY WAR will be saluted by the World. During each CEASEFIRE, the other side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL. On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, 'THE 12 DAY WAR.' This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will! God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!"
Writes President Trump, on Truth Social
Hmm, so Israeli/Iranian "Ceasefire" (what are the Iranians going to "fire" with? their pungent Farts?) So maybe (yeah, right) "45/47(48?)" gets a Nobel Peace Prize??? Of course not, but can we dig up Henry Kissinger and Jimmuh Cartuh, and take theirs back? Oh, and that FBI "SRT" team with the Jump Boots and Uzi's that raided Maralogo to take back "45" s legally owned files raid Barry Hussein's lair and take back his? Lets see, Henry the K presided over the largest Civilian bombing raids since WW2, Jimmuh Cartuh sent Amurican Special Forces into Ear-Ron, and still trying to remember what Barry Hussein did except have more Melanin than me
We will see if it endures, Mr. Bumble.
There is an ancient aphorism that applies here: It is the one who takes off his battle armor himself, that can boast.
They need to find the enriched material and take it away.
Uh oh....Bob from Ohio and Longtobefree are not going to like this.
Bob from Ohio: Destroy their navy and shore to ship missiles. Destroy their oil facilities.
Longtobefree: Total economic embargo, general; don't forget a total economic embargo.
apedad: Iran has already violated the ceasefire agreement, by firing two ballistic missiles (intercepted by IDF) at northern Israel. There will be a response later today. It will be painful for Iran.
You have it backwards. It was Israel who violated the cease fire. it's Israel who leads us by the nose into endless wars their behalf.
YOu have no way of knowing that, YOU are trying to lead people into war. DISGUSTING
No, actually neither side breached, at least as reflected in Trump's dumbass tweet, which inexplicably expressly allowed each side to keep attacking each other.
...and now they are shooting at each other again.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/24/world/ceasefire-iran-israel-trump
It's almost as if nobody cares what Trump says about anything, unless they need him to drop some really big bombs.
Eurotrash: 'They' are not doing anything.
Iran, unprovoked, opted to violate the ceasefire by firing two ballistic missiles at Israel, which were intercepted. Iran did something.
Israel will respond to the ceasefire violation, and it will hurt.
Your problem here is that you see everything in terms of good guys and bad guys, and you think that everyone else does too. Almost everyone involved in this war belongs behind bars. They're all bad guys. And some (e.g. the Ayatollah) are decidedly worse than others.
From my facebook feed
BREAKING NEWS: CHAOS ERUPTS AS IRAN INVADES FLORIDA – A WILD TALE UNFOLDS! Posted by Florida Action News at 5:30 PM EDT, Monday, June 23, 2025 Good evening, Florida! This is your host, Jake "Gator" Thompson, bringing you live coverage of an unprecedented event rocking our Sunshine State. At approximately 5:18 PM EDT today, Iranian forces made the bold—some might say foolhardy—decision to invade our beloved peninsula, landing ships off Miami Beach. What followed can only be described as a chaotic, gun-toting, gator-filled spectacle that’s quintessentially Florida! The Invasion Begins Reports confirm that Iranian troops disembarked under the cover of dusk, expecting a swift takeover. But they underestimated the spirit of Floridians! Within minutes, the redneck militia rolled out in full force—pickup trucks adorned with Confederate flags blaring "Sweet Home Alabama" as they sped toward the shoreline. Armed with rusty rifles and a whole lot of attitude, these locals turned the beach into a battleground, shouting, “Y’all picked the wrong state!” The Concealed Carry Counterattack Let’s not forget—Florida is a concealed carry state, and every resident seems to be packing heat! Retirees from The Villages swapped their golf clubs for handguns, popping off shots between sips of sweet tea. Spring breakers in Daytona Beach, still in their neon trunks, drew pistols from beach bags, turning a volleyball game into a firing line. Even the meth heads—yes, those unpredictable tweakers—stumbled into action, dual-wielding firearms while launching erratic Molotov cocktails, accidentally setting the mangroves ablaze in a psychedelic light show. It’s estimated that over 90% of the state’s population is armed and ready, making this invasion a shooter’s paradise gone wild! Nature Joins the Fight The Everglades became a natural fortress, thanks to our board vets—ex-military folks who rigged the swamps with gator bait traps. Iranian soldiers, bogged down by humidity and sudden rain, found themselves face-to-face with 12-foot gators like "Bubba," who chomped down with patriotic fury. Panthers and pythons joined the fray, spooking the invaders into a retreat, while mosquitoes feasted like it was an all-you-can-eat buffet. One soldier was overheard yelling, “This swamp is alive!”—and he’s not wrong! Tourists Turn the Tide Tourists, caught mid-vacation, turned chaos into opportunity. Spring breakers livestreamed the madness with hashtags like #IranVsFlorida, posing for selfies with fleeing soldiers. Retirees in golf carts armed with water cannons and sunscreen grenades shouted, “Not on my lawn!” as they chased invaders down palm-lined streets. Some even detoured to Disney World, reasoning, “If I’m evacuating, I’m riding Space Mountain first!” Enterprising vendors already hawk “I Survived the Iran-Florida War” T-shirts, with sales booming at $20 a pop. The Meth-Fueled Fireworks Finale In a stroke of mad genius, the meth heads stumbled upon a fireworks stash, launching a dazzling counterattack that lit up the night sky. Erratic explosions and colorful bursts confused the Iranian ranks, turning their retreat into a full-on rout. By dawn, the invaders were limping back to their ships, outmaneuvered by a state where every Floridian’s got a gun, a gator, and a wild streak! The Aftermath As the sun rises tomorrow, Floridians are gearing up for a victory celebration—a gator roast at Waffle House, complete with a toast to the Second Amendment. Governor DeSantis has yet to comment, but sources say he’s considering a “Florida Freedom Day” to honor this bizarre triumph. Stay tuned for updates, folks—this is one story that’ll go down in the annals of Florida Man lore! Share this post to spread the word, and let us know in the comments how you’d handle an invasion! Like and follow Florida Action News for the latest! #FloridaStrong #IranVsFlorida #GatorVictory
Sounds like a job for Serge Storms
I occasionally do this to see if/how I've changed
https://www.politicalcompass.org/
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 0.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41
Last time was about three or four years ago, I think. Marginally more economically centrist from +0.3 or so, and pretty much unchanged on the social scale.
It is easy to find analysis claiming JFK's policies if enacted today would be very Right and very Authoritarian. While falsely attributed to Churchill there is more than a little truth to ‘If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.’
JFK's policies? "Advisors" in South Vietnam (apparently they "advised" President Diem to shoot himself) over 1,000 Nuke-ular (JFK pronounced it correctly at least) Bombers a number of which were on 24-7 Airborne Alert, deploying the "Minuteman" ICBM which remains in service, a Federal Death Penalty that was actually enforced, Invaded Cuber, cut Taxes, no Homo's/Tranny's in the Military, had his brother spy on that Traitor MLK, wow, almost makes me want to go back 65 years and vote for the guy!
The version I heard was "not to be a socialist at 20", etc, restricting it to socialism. Churchill would not have been damn fool enough to think that being a conservative at 35 showed any great intelligence.
The aphorism doesn't attribute intelligence to being a conservative at 35. It attributes a lack of intelligence to being a liberal at 35.
People naturally get more conservative as they age, it takes a special sort of stupidity, not the run of the mill sort, to avoid that. An extra increment of stubbornness to avoid learning from experience.
These people follow an ideology that, historically speaking, has created more misery and loss of life than any other in human history.
If they refuse to learn from history, they will refuse to learn from experience.
NO, wrong. It is not talking about anything but development, which includes emotion, fellow-feeling, experience.
Have you no children? They wil say "Give everybody a million dollars and things will be fine "
Yes, I have a son, he'd never say anything so stupid. Very entrepreneurial, running his own business at 16. I expect him to do well.
People naturally get more conservative as they age
Not because of intelligence, though.
No, because of experience. Like I said, it just requires a special sort of stupidity to not learn from that experience.
Nor even necessarily due to experience, but due to being more invested in the status quo, being more worried/insecure, loss of mental flexibility, etc.
Of course it can't be that as you get older you have different interests and are more likely to be "set in your ways." The answer that avoids introspection is always the best.
Economic Left/Right: -6.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95
I took the test:
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 1.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
Libertarian, leaning right.
I can see why there is so much disagreement.
Economic Left/Right: -3.5 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49
Wow, right out of the starting gate, a question I can't even figure out how to answer, the premises are so wrong. And it kept happening. It's like you're going along and suddenly "Is blue loud or shrill?" Not every question, but a lot of them, had no answer that I could really sign onto.
Anyway, Economic Left/Right: 3.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.08
But, really, this survey was such a bad fit to my actual way of thinking it's absurd.
I came out -8.13 economic, -4.05 authoritarian: Far left, moderate libertarian. Sounds about right.
I am a little irked that the quiz asks whether I think a working mother's first priority should be homemaking but doesn't ask the same question about fathers. All parents should prioritize the home.
That was one of the questions I really disliked.
A working mother's first priority should be child rearing, just like that should be the first priority of a working father. How they distribute homemaking tasks is up to them, it's not a matter of political or economic philosophy.
I happen to like cooking, and am a morning person who typically gets home from work earlier than my wife. So I generally cook the meals and consequently do the dishes. My wife is much more tidy than I am, so she ends up doing most of the cleaning, if I were doing it the house wouldn't be clean enough to suit her. That's just practicality and differing inclinations.
Really, most of these questions would have benefited from having a "WTF?" option.
OF course the assumption is that the questionaire maker is some embodiement of mind, heart and will, an assumption that once seen is untenable.
Good lord the gender disparity is part of the question!
Yeah, that's the problem. Too much extraneous crap built right into the questions.
Such questions are aimed at positioning you against other people - calibrating, if you like.
It is not a science experiment where you want to vary only one variable.
You write that as though it shouldn't have been.
Well, let me ask you a question: Do you believe that women, as a demographic, could make better voting decisions? Yes or no only please.
3.13, -5.74
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: -2.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.1
I lean left. It gives me no pleasure to admit that. It reflects my strong inclination to moderate my strongest inclinations, which are to support individual liberty, free markets, private property, limited government. Those are my strongest inclinations, and for the benefit of the rest of you who want otherwise, I moderate those inclinations. I am, quite actively, a centrist...a notably unprincipled manner.
As I do every time I take this quiz, I shake my head both at what's included/not included and the framing of some of the questions. (I frequently have to decide whether to answer what they're actually asking or what I think they're really trying to get at. So my answers change depending on which I pick for a given question.) With those caveats:
Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 5.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
I don't know about the US, but in Europe they often have these sorts of quizzes to help voters decide which party is the best fit for them. They basically have the party answer the questions first, based on their manifestoes, and then you can answer the questions and see where you land.
Because these things are quite influential in the Netherlands (maybe as many as 20% of voters use them), they are quite carefully designed and seriously scrutinised these days. As a result, you can usually mark the issues/questions you care more or less about, and usually they will show you in the end how each question mapped onto each party's manifesto. That is, you can see which answers you gave drove the result you got.
It would have been nice to have that here as well.
I am a little surprised that I am not the most leftist posting, and much surprised that I am the most libertarian.
Economic Left/Right: -5.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.31
DHS v. D.V.D.
is the district court saying that because they the supreme court only stayed his greater seconding injunction that including a whole class, he can still go ahead and enforce the same injunction that applied to 8 people?
The "Rule of Law" team is going to be soooo upset...
Once again MAGA mostly cares about who is owned, not anything substantive.
A Democrat judge has declared he is insurrecting against SCOTUS's ruling today.
What should happen to it?
"A Democrat judge has declared he is insurrecting against SCOTUS's ruling today."
Supporting facts, LexAquilia?
https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1937306646654402632
Wow, I'd assumed at least some degree of hyperbole, but, yup, that's just open defiance of the Supreme court, doesn't even pretend otherwise.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him.
That order means nothing of what you claim, LexAquilia. It relates to a prior order of May 21, 2025, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.119.0_1.pdf as to which the government did not appeal and did not seek a stay. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Why am I unsurprised?
Obviously the second order subsumed the first. The second order was struck down by SCOTUS.
However, no one expected any different of a response than that from you. You're the Adam Schiff of this forum. You have no credibility.
No order was "struck down by SCOTUS." The preliminary injunction order of April 18 -- not "the second order" as you falsely posit -- was stayed pending appeal.
Words have meaning. Use them accurately, LexAquila. (The first step there is to pull your head out from up your hindquarters.)
it's so odd though, that you cite the dissent, and avoid the obvious implication of a higher court rule. But I guess technically the Judge is correct but how is this any different than what the administration did construing "facilitate" incredibly narrowly so it lost a lot of meaning.
It seems to me to be open legal defiance, the literal "thumb your nose" at a ruling. I would expect a circuit court to not let itself be embarrassed and grant stay. But who knows these days, lower Courts ignoring Supreme rulings is common these days (see almost every case after Trump v. Wilcox)
interesting the Solicitor General kind of went scorched earth on that district Judge. It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS does.
No win situation for SCOTUS. that district court Judge did put them in a bad spot.
This isn't a courtroom, this is a public forum.
Your pedantry makes you look like a fool. Even more so than your arguments.
Your lying about what happened makes you look like a liar. Though to be fair, you're probably just too dumb to know that everything you said was false. (The difference between true and false is not "pedantry.")
Parsing the difference between "struck down" and "staying" is what whiney faggots and dipshit lawyers do.
Given your comment history, I'm going to assume the former for you and the latter for him.
The broader order clearly subsumes the narrower order. This is obvious regardless of the precision of my words. Pedants focus on the precision, while autistics can't grok the broader argument.
Do you think that it is more likely than not that Judge Murphy will ultimately succeed here?
No, I don't think he will. As Justice Brennan was wont to remind his clerks, "The most important word in this building is five."
But what Judge Murphy is doing is not "insurrecting," as LexAquilia foolishly posited.
Ah, but will 5 members of the Court agree with you about that?
If it ever made it to SCOTUS, we'd see a quip from Gorsuch about fiery but mostly peaceful insurrections.
J. D. Vance recently referred to "our boys in the bombers" conducting the attack on Iran's nuclear faculties. For some reason, the left objected to this because one or more of the pilots might have been female (never mind that the number of female B-2 pilots is so small that confirming one's participation would be close to naming her), rather than because every single pilot was definitely an adult.
I guess one must have priorities.
The left? Or like some wanker on Bluesky?
This smacks of nutpicking.
Jennifer Griffin of Fox News called him out on Twitter. Which, to be fair, is the "left" from Michael's perspective. And a woman to boot!
I did not know who that was.
“ Jennifer Griffin is an American journalist who works as Chief national security correspondent at the Pentagon for Fox News.”
Oh lol.
The temerity! Nasty woman!
at the time of Chaucer 'girl' referred to young males and females. As does the modern 'boys' in this age of trans and gays
We should literally ignore reality to satisfy Mikie's gender perceptions, if you don't, what a whiner you are!
This raging controversy appears to be about one sentence in a blog post by New York Times reporter John Ismay.
We could go back to masculine diminutive names instead of "boys." A British soldier is traditionally a Tommy. Turkish soldiers go by the generic name Mehmetçik (little Mehmet).
"Fire up the deportation planes...."
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/23/trump-deportation-supreme-court.html
Illegal aliens will be deported out of this country, one way or the other.
So will all sorts of other people. I hope you enjoyed living in a free country.
If Commenter_XY tweeted that message as a UK citizen (where you live), he could be arrested and put in prison.
Bullshit
All sorts of illegal aliens, including the ones Reason will try to pretend are legal.
"So will all sorts of other people."
No they won't.
"I hope you enjoyed living in a free country."
We live in the most free country in the world. Challenge that!
I do. If your are a fed, or want to come inning a visa, or work for a university or work for a law firm or work for a media network or work for a library or work for museums.
It’s not freedom if you are an in group and so are protects but not bound. That’s just white peoples in Jim Crow logic.
"We live in the most free country in the world."
And yet we need to Make America Great Again?
Easily: https://www.cato.rg/human-freedom-index/2024
The US doesn't even make the top 15,
Worse here: https://freedomhouse.org/country/scores
Publius obviously meant "We" in "We live in the most free country in the world," are us WASP-ish VC commentors - not the rest of America, 'cause, you know, the rest don't count.
Not surprised. As DC & Administrative State grew more and more powerful, we became less and less free.
We live to serve the Governing Class, not the other way around, like in most communist/left wing societies.
Only one of us can be kidnapped off the street by masked secret police, and it isn't me.
Well, if you believe that, then we're doing them a favor. They are, after all, getting a free ticket out of what you no longer consider a free country. Would you like one too?
Congratulations. The US isn't literally the least free country in the world. That's what you're bragging about these days?
Ranked Choice Voting has a shockingly high ballot error rate (4.8%): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-025-10028-4
I'd call that surprisingly low. As I've said before, I think RCV is based on some premises about voters that are objectively false, such as that they actually have well formed preferences beyond their first pick. And one must always remember that half the population is below 100 IQ, KISS should be the order of the day.
Ouch, that shows some science learnin needs to be done here.
RCV doesn't require any ranking if you don't want to. AND if everybody in the universe suddenly got a 100% boost in intelligence there would still be half below 100, that is what 100 means, in a civilization of geniuses or dullards 100 is the midpoint
Right, and I'm saying that things like voting, which you hope most people to do, should be made as simple as possible, to take into account the fact that a considerable portion of the population isn't too bright.
Sure, if tomorrow you doubled everybody's intelligence, (Poul Anderson's "Brainwave", great novel.) keeping it simple, stupid, would imply a higher bar for what qualifies as "simple". But the point remains: Don't make things most people are expected to do overly complex.
Ireland does a ranked choice voting. It goes fine. Unless all these hypothetical people confused by ranking candidate kept quiet about their confusion.
It’s not the only country either.
Your vibes are once again counterexampled by stuff that is actually happening outside your head.
I'm sure you can find plenty of evidence of things in civil life that work in the United States but don't work elsewhere. Tradition, culture, and education are all variables that your Irish example does not control for.
So your thesis is Americans are exceptional in their inability to understand ranking candidates.
The evidence- the only evidence that was actually posted here, in fact- suggests that is indeed the case.
That evidence has plenty of potential explanations. Yours is a pretty silky one.
Absolutely. And a butterfly may have started flapping 10ms later than it did, and we’ll never know.
Having two separate elections, weeks apart, is more of a barrier to voting than RCV is.
...or eliminate 50%+1 and candidate with the most votes wins.
Encourages spoiler and ghost candidates.
RCV should ideally be used with voting machines. Easier to tabulate and the machine would refuse to cast invalid ballots.
First-past-the-post guarantees you can cast a ballot to the candidate you want to vote, but at the same time punishes you for doing so. I expect that number to be well above 4.8% of the voters.
If we were to improve the voting method while making it easy, approval voting or STAR voting is probably the best. Or, just use proportional representation.
I think proportional representation is ideal for legislatures, (Let everybody who gets more than a minimal level of support get a seat, and weight their votes according to how many votes THEY got... And let voters reassign their votes at will!) but doesn't really work for executive positions, where there's only one person getting the position. Proportionality is basically ruled out, the losers' votes don't count at all.
But if we're not going first past the post, I think we should have actual runoff elections, not IRV.
“proportional representation is ideal for legislatures”
Wait until you hear about this thing called the United States Senate!
Unlike the House, that was designed to be proportional to states rather than people; but actually they're both proportional to wealth.
Trump on Israel: "They don't know what the fuck they're doing" https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/24/politics/video/trump-israel-iran-ceasfire-reaction-ldn-digvid
Trump getting frustrated as another shot at a Nobel Peace Prize disappears.
Oh well.
There's always his next term as President.
Given the list of "distinguished" former winners, maybe he would rather forgo membership in that club.
I agree that the Peace Prize is often bullshit, and the award to Obama was ridiculous, but Trump really wants one - no doubt partly because Obama got one.
He was once overheard shouting "This is supposed to be MY deal, and MY Nobel Peace Prize!"
In a sign of just how topsy turvy this country has become, Emil Bove’s candidacy for a judgeship maybe actually be perversely strengthened by this compliant being publicized.
https://apnews.com/article/justice-department-emil-bove-judge-deportations-trump-3800859fc5035bfa7f091ebc97711fb8
Similarly as with Whiskey Pete Hegseth— the more disqualifying the conduct would have been in the past, the more tightly Trump will cling to these nominees. Con men tend to be easy marks. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bove was getting some pushback behind the scenes and worked to get this out there himself.
How about it huckleberries? Do you just love this guy more and more every day?
“And what we are told is that as of now, this defense intelligence agency assessment, it does conclude at this point… that those underground facilities, including the centrifuges, including the highly enriched uranium that everyone has been talking so much about, those are largely intact.”
Oopsies. Turns out it was all kayfabe. You fell for it again, hucklers! Arms control wonk is always a good go-to if you get tired of being wrong all the time.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1936955686174466551.html
I find it very strange that the commenter here who was masturbating to the Israeli/U.S. attacks on Iran and crowing in both prose and free vese how Iran had been utterly defeated and its nuclear capacity destroyed has suddenly gone totally silent. (Editor's note: he doesn't find it very strange at all.)
*free verse
“I will never be convinced otherwise; we have seen The Almighty in action.”
MAGA purple prose at its finest
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Jeff Luse | 8.28.2025 4:45 PM
Veronique de Rugy | 8.28.2025 4:30 PM
Jacob Sullum | 8.28.2025 4:15 PM
Jack Nicastro | 8.28.2025 4:00 PM
Eric Boehm | 8.28.2025 3:45 PM
