Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

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.

[Kazinski]

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/

[not guilty]

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.

[Supremacy Claus]

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.

[Riva]

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.

[not guilty]

And that whataboutism has what to do with whether the DOJ has shown that Abrego Garcia should be detained pending trial?

[Michael P]

It highlights how much the evidentiary standards change with the defendant's skin color.

[Malika the Maiz]

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

[Riva]

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.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Riva. That whataboutism has what to do with whether the DOJ has shown that Abrego Garcia should be detained pending trial?

[Riva]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

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).

[Riva]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

Riva bot going to perform that much needed diagnostic! Make sure to install the statistics and informal logic programs!

[LexAquilia]

And with the political winds.

[Riva]

Your commitment to defending the rights of mistreated American citizens is admirable.

[Supremacy Claus]

Investigate the judge. Arrest her for the likely 3 federal felonies committed daily by everyone with a job.

[hobie]

Aren't subjective assertions that he's an antisemitic terrorist kinda like evidence?

[Kazinski]

Different case Hobie.

[LawTalkingGuy]

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.

[santamonica811]

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).

[Martinned]

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.

[Don Nico]

You have just showed that you don't understand actual operational security.

[Stephen Lathrop]

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.

[Don Nico]

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.

[Don Nico]

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

[Kazinski]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

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.

[Martinned]

Yes, the guys who discuss military secrets on Signal are definitley the guys who are worried about operational security.

[Brett Bellmore]

"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.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s a helluva charge.

[bye]

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

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

I recall none of that because it’s a long time ago,

You went on Dems are evil vibes again, it seems.

[Bwaaah]

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.

[LexAquilia]

Because you personally couldn't remember it, you don't think he did?

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think it’s relevant to anything going on today, without showing a lot more work.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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

[Stephen Lathrop]

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.

[not guilty]

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.

[tylertusta]

possible

Operational security may not make it possible.

[hobie]

I read the statute a couple of times. I'm not seeing 'operational security' as a condition for congressional consultation.

[tylertusta]

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.

[Riva]

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.

[not guilty]

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?

[Riva]

You forgot to mention Art. II.

[SRG2]

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.)

[Malika the Maiz]

Implied powers trump explicit ones!

[Riva]

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.

[OpinionsVary]

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.

[Riva]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

“I'm reading the Constitution.”

Parts of it, at least! Riva bot has not been programmed for a full read!

[SRG2]

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.

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.

[Riva]

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.

[SRG2]

Not actually addressing the argument, of course, because "Quixotic" is not synonymous with "wrong".

[Bob from Ohio]

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..

[SRG2]

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?

[Martinned]

LOL, that's so yesterday!

[Dr. Ed 2]

He "consulted" -- he told everyone that he MIGHT bomb Iraq, that he was "thinking about it."

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, Like Barry Hussein did with the Bin Laden operation?

[Michael P]

Libya too, of course.

[hobie]

Riva : Clinton!
Frankie: Obama!
Michael P: Libya!

Drink!

[Michael P]

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.

[SRG2]

I never realised that Obama's middle name indicates that he might not be 100% white European. Thanks for pointing that out,

[Frank Drackman]

So his middle name's "Hussein"?? seems only your side gets upset when it's mentioned

[Malika the Maiz]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

Whataboutism hat trick!

[hobie]

'Alex, I'll take Whataboutism for 800.'

'And the answer is: These three snowflakes never address the subjects in The Volokh Conspiracy.'

[Krayt]

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.

[Moderation4ever]

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.

[bye]

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.

[Riva]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

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.

[LexAquilia]

Whataboutism hat trick!

[Malika the Maiz]

Not a hockey or soccer fan, I see!

Also, that was more every accusation is a confession than whataboutism, know your memes!

[Riva]

'

[Moderation4ever]

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.

[Armchair]

"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.

[Bunny495]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

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

[Artifex]

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 ?

[Malika the Maiz]

“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/

[Artifex]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

“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.”

[PaulS]

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

[Kazinski]

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&

[Mr. Bumble]

The Star Tribune is the quintessential Democrat party (in this case DFL) rag.

[Martinned]

Tl;dr, Kazinski spent more time watching Newsmaxxx over the weekend.

[Kazinski]

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

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Tl;dr, Kazinski spent more time watching Newsmaxxx over the weekend.

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

Never anything substantive from Wuzzie, just insults, epitome of a troll.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently Boelter was a "Son of Sam" type killer, with the Governor playing the part of the dog. Go figure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Loved that movie.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Riva]

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?

[bye]

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

[hobie]

What a scoop!

[SRG2]

Do you believe Boelter's claim or are you rational?

[Malika the Maiz]

“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.

[Martinned]

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?

[Martinned]

Yes, of course, I'm forgetting the Gulf

- Saudi
- UAE
- Qatar

[Kazinski]

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.

[Martinned]

And now Iran will definitely develop a nuke.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

"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.”

[Martinned]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

unless there is a regime change.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, you can bomb knowledge out of existence, depending on how widely disseminated it was before you killed the people who had it.

[John F. Carr]

Recently Medvedev has been playing the "bad cop" role. Comply or we nuke you! Then good Mr. Putin doesn't nuke anybody.

[John F. Carr]

"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.

[Krayt]

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.

[Joe_dallas]

Gaslighto - enlighten us on why obama was giving pallets of cash to iran?

[Martinned]

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?

[Martinned]

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.

[Michael P]

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".

[Martinned]

I'm not sure who you think you gotcha'ed there.

[Krayt]

And yet...and yet...they said all this same stuff about North Korea. Yet one day, oh dear.

[Martinned]

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

[Joe_dallas]

The Jpcoa was always a joke

[Sarcastr0]

Did you see the chart at the link?

[Joe_dallas]

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

[Sarcastr0]

Great analysis.

[Bob from Ohio]

"FT has a chart"

A chart!

It was a secret military project. Neither you, nor FT, has any idea how many they were installing.

[bye]

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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Am I missing anyone?
Ukraine
Canada
Greenland (Denmark)
Panama

[TwelveInchPianist]

Martinned:

We have to allow other countries to develop nuclear weapons, or else other countries will develop nuclear weapons!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Taiwan"

We should sell or gift them 6-12 nukes right now.

[Martinned]

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.

(Incidentally, Bill Clinton may well be the smartest President the US has ever had. But in other ways he is so, so dumb.)

[bye]

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)

[Bunny495]

There is widespread agreement the most intelligent dinner that ever occurred in the White House was when Jefferson dined alone.

[Bob from Ohio]

"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.

[Martinned]

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.

[Martinned]

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!”

[Commenter_XY]

They had their 60 days to talk. Time is up.

Iran is defeated.

[Martinned]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...at least formulate some coherent war aims."
Step one: Destroy Iran's nuclear program. Check!

[Martinned]

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

[Commenter_XY]

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

[Commenter_XY]

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.

[Martinned]

This is Israel's war, not America's.

SACRILEGE!!! It's the Great Leader's war!

[Commenter_XY]

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.

[hobie]

"The Congress has not declared war."

Precisely

[Mr. Bumble]

...and hasn't since WWII.

[Don Nico]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Eurotrash keyboard warrior spews site with TDS vomit.

[Martinned]

A Republic, if you can keep it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe we should transition to a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, such as the Netherlands?

[Martinned]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

How many "lunatics" does it take?

[Martinned]

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.

[CountmontyC]

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.

[Bob from Ohio]

"everyone would kick their asses"

Not fair, they could likely beat Luxembourg.

[CountmontyC]

It would be close but Luxembourg has enough money to hire a bunch of soccer hooligans to defend it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Luxembourg could hire a bunch of Serbs. Dutch soldiers are already proven to run like little girls from Serbs.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In my country we don't go to war...

...because you'd lose to the average Girl Scouts troop.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"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

[Mr. Bumble]

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.

[lal]

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?

[Martinned]

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...

[Frank Drackman]

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

[not guilty]

President Johnson could have run again for President in 1968. Of his own volition, he elected not to do so.

[Frank Drackman]

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

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Martinned]

AFAIK no US president has ever accepted that the WPR is constitutional, and in the US there is no way to resolve that dispute.

[Commenter_XY]

America is the most litigious society on planet earth. You cannot tell me that there is no way to resolve the dispute. 😉

[Martinned]

Who do you think would sue whom in which court to get an answer to the question of whether the WPR is constitutional?

[Krayt]

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.

[Martinned]

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.

[Don Nico]

That is the first credible thing that you've said this morning, Martin.

[Frank Drackman]

The Pig found a Truffle

[not guilty]

"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.

[Martinned]

Interesting. Who would be the defendant in that case? The United States? Congress?

[John F. Carr]

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.

[Moderation4ever]

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.

[Martinned]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

The "electorate" of Iran?

[Martinned]

Them too.

[Martinned]

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?

[Mr. Bumble]

What makes you think they didn't advise and concur?

[Martinned]

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.)

[Mr. Bumble]

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.

[Martinned]

Sure, we wouldn't want to risk anyone giving Trump advice he doesn't want to hear, would we?

[Don Nico]

Why do you assume that Rubio was unaware or had no input?

[Martinned]

Because he was still saying that the war aims didn't include regime change until he read he was wrong on Truth Social.

[Krayt]

[Don Nico]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

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?

[Krayt]

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.

[Martinned]

Haven't you heard? There's an emergency in the US. What more legal basis do you need?

[John F. Carr]

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.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't see what the problem is, Ear-Ron wants a Bomb, we gave them a few.

[Mr. Bumble]

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?

[Martinned]

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.

[apedad]

Shouldn't we start with what is the legal justification for US's bombing of Iran?

[Bob from Ohio]

"how should the world react?"

Destroy their navy and shore to ship missiles. Destroy their oil facilities.

[Malika the Maiz]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

“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/

[hobie]

Does this include all the prepper supplements that they hock to all our rubes on AM radio?

[Michael P]

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?

[Martinned]

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.

[hobie]

I'm not sure that greatness in Iran is in the interest of the United States. A great and prospering islamo-terrorist nation.

[Martinned]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

CHINA and Russia don't want Iran to have a nuke because we might just give their enemies a few nukes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you don't remember Iran under the Shah.

[Martinned]

You think "regime change" means bringing the Shah back???

[Mr. Bumble]

I said nothing of the sort.

[Bob from Ohio]

"bringing the Shah back???"

He's dead Jim

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

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.

[apedad]

No.

Do righties here read that as a call to make Iran a white Christian ethnostate?

[Michael P]

Righties aren't the ones who claim MAGA is a call to make the US a white Christian ethnostate, champ.

[Malika the Maiz]

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

[apedad]

See my post below about, "White Nationalist Awarded For Law School Paper Arguing Constitution Only Applies To White People."

[Dr. Ed 2]

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.

[tylertusta]

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

[Krayt]

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."

[not guilty]

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?

[Martinned]

When this sort of nonsense results in them losing elections. So I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Krayt]

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.

[Krayt]

Bah, vein. This site is so dogged out the 5 minute edit button grayed out before I could do a second edit-save cycle.

[Martinned]

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.

https://www.thejournal.ie/us-visa-changes-6740830-Jun2025/

[Frank Drackman]

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

[Don Nico]

And your point is?

[Martinned]

That Project 2025 are destroying American liberty.

[LexAquilia]

What do you think it was that destroyed British liberty? Doctrinaire leftism?

[Martinned]

So far the British are doing better than you are.

[Don Nico]

What are you talking about? The Brits are becoming a basket case.

[LexAquilia]

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.

[Malika the Maiz]

Cite?

[Bob from Ohio]

"American liberty"

Visa requirements have nothing to do with American liberty.

[Don Nico]

That was not what you were talking about

[hobie]

We need to keep out all the Gaelic Antisemitic Terrorists that didn't vote for Trump

[Dr. Ed 2]

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...

[hobie]

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?

[Martinned]

No

[OpinionsVary]

Suspending Habeas Corpus is in Article I not II. It is for Congress. Even Lincoln was forced to back down on this point.

[John F. Carr]

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.

[not guilty]

"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").

[Don Nico]

Geez, Ed. How did you learn how to say so many stupid things?

[Martinned]

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.

https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-illegal-israeli-american-use-of-force-against-iran-a-follow-up/

[Martinned]

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.

[John F. Carr]

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.

[Martinned]

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.

[Frank Drackman]

That'd be comforting if they weren't the same ones who said Afghanistan's Government was stable and could hold off the Taliban

[Malika the Maiz]

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!

[Don Nico]

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.

[Don Nico]

Thank you, John.
But Martin and friends don't care about that.

[Bob from Ohio]

A waste of pixels. Nobody cares.

[Moderation4ever]

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".

[Dr. Ed 2]

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?

[tylertusta]

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.

[Kazinski]

Its almost like Russia is rooting for regime change.

[tylertusta]

Meanwhile, China is telling Iran to not close the Strait of Hormuz. That takes Iran's most effective retaliation option off of the table.

[Malika the Maiz]

“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

[hobie]

Well, when Texas hayseeds are past their prime, we have to store them somewhere.

[Frank Drackman]

One day Karma's gonna tap dance all over your nappy haid'

[Malika the Maiz]

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.

[apedad]

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?

[John F. Carr]

You should take this comment to one of Josh Blackman's posts on the topic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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?

[Malika the Maiz]

“How is this different from critical race theory?”

So close.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is anyone else experiencing slow or no connection with this site?

[Martinned]

Yes. I assumed it was me.

[hobie]

Pretty much every day up in this bitch. The servers at Reason suck

[hobie]

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!

[Martinned]

Don't worry, Trump is on it: https://bsky.app/profile/craigipedia.bsky.social/post/3lsbpm7q55c2g

[Mr. Bumble]

...and it's down slightly, so far, today.
All the other markets are up. Gold up slightly.
So what's your point?

[hobie]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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.

[Swede425]

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!

[tylertusta]

Anyone still up for tacos?

[Malika the Maiz]

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/#

[tylertusta]

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

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[tylertusta]

I gave up trying to divine what Trump would do a long time ago.

I just had to accept that Trump is chaos.

[Malika the Maiz]

And yet you support him?

That’s messed up.

[Malika the Maiz]

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.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

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.