Wednesday Open Thread

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

Comments please on the subject of a proposed citizenship database, administered by the national Executive.

Why will that not undermine state control of national elections?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't think elections is what they want it for, because they already have several national databases, starting with Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, and Real ID.

[NvEric]

While I object to this, it's a natural progression due to the expanding federal government and the ability of technology to enable it.

Fighting the technology is one thing, but the problem is the size of the federal government. One could add the progression of national politics to be another factor of concern. The velocity of interactions using modern communications also plays a factor.

Curbing the federal government is needed. This means states must take up some slack as they see fit. 330+ million people present new challenges in the management equation, government that is. This leads one to consider personal responsibility education.

[Riva]

Being able to determine that a person attempting to register to vote is not a citizen and ineligible to vote undermines national elections in some way?

[Poxigah146]

It does if you're a Democrat and think that you have the right to win by cheating.

[ducksalad]

You disclosed the game here, perhaps unintentionally, but use of the word "determine".

It isn't a factual argument about who is or isn't a citizen. It's all about who has power to "determine" someone isn't a citizen, just like the power to "determine" there is an invasion, "determine" there is an emergency, "determine" that someone is a member of a foreign-controlled gang, etc.

We've already seen the intended tactics:
1. Claiming that lack of proof is proof of lack. (NC Republicans trying to get votes thrown out, false AZ claims about 200K non-citizen voters)
2. Saying that a US birth certificate is not enough proof. (EO on birthright citizenship)
3. Claims by especially rancid liars and idiots that the "vesting clause" gives the president authority to implement 1 and 2 without Congress, or even against the will of Congress.
4. Gleeful exploitation of last week's SC decision: when a citizen successfully challenges their deletion from the database, it will only apply to that one citizen. No broader injunction. Each and every deleted voter has to either spend thousands on lawyers, and miss several elections while waiting for a court date. Or just give up, which is the hope.
5. Smirking, trolling statements that it's just about election integrity.

[Riva]

Uh...what? That one is a citizen or is not a citizen when they register to vote is certainly a determinable fact. It's not like some insane subjective belief regarding one's gender.

[ducksalad]

I have 19th century beliefs above sealions. Harpoon them.

Stop pretending to not understand. There are huge numbers of people whose right to citizenship is questioned by MAGA Republicans. Furthermore, in NC they already tried to cancel the votes of citizens - selectively, in Democratic voting counties - because some number wasn't on file in some database.

[Riva]

If one needs examples of biased ill-informed opinions to contrast with facts, they need look no further than your comments.

[A Japanese Student]

Voter eligibility (particularly with respect to citizenship) is a federal law matter. I've posted many times here that many of the voting issues in the US - such as cumbersome voter registration - can be easily resolved by registration at birth/naturalization in a national database.

There's a constitutional argument (that it violates anticommandering doctrine); I doubt though that it applies in Elections Clause cases, and even if that is the case, this is one of the few things I'd see three quarters of States agreeing.

[not guilty]

Eligibility to vote in federal elections is a federal law matter. States may choose to let non-citizens vote in elections for state and/or local offices.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not-guilty — Eligibility is but part of the issue. Administration of elections, and especially vote counting are historically state-managed functions. There has not thus far been a federal government power to obviate the security that decentralized state-run election procedures confer on the voting and vote-counting processes.

A citizen database operated by the federal Executive would implicate a federal government power to override state election management, and state vote counting. The Executive would become empowered to tell the states who could vote, and to tell the states which votes to count or discard.

That is especially dangerous. It puts the federal government—the principal target of sovereign constraint by elections—in a position to reverse that fundamental principle of American constitutionalism. It would make members of the joint popular sovereignty subject to constraint as voters by the Executive. A simple, "clerical error," in the Executive department could not only disqualify a vote, but expose the voter himself to punishment, or even deportation without full judicial process. The Executive department would remain in full charge of all means to accomplish legal review.

That does not merely turn upside down the most important principle of American joint popular sovereignty. It makes the national Executive actually sovereign, in both theory and in fact.

Never forget that actual sovereignty is founded on absolute, uncontrollable power, exercised at pleasure, from which there is no appeal. Does that describe what anyone—except perhaps MAGA/Trump advocates—thinks the American Executive ought to look like?

[minus the clever name]

Until I hear Stephen utterly lambaste Biden's Government Disinformation Board, I know WHY he is on about this, TRUMP.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m more concerned about the Pogroms Mayor Zoran Ramadan-a-ding-dong will preside over

[not guilty]

Pogroms, Frank? Do you think hyperbole is persuasive?

[Frank Drackman]

Pogroms, it's a word, that means things, that potential Mayor Zoran could give a (redacted) about, sorry if your conscience is bothering you.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
I don't see why it would naturally do so. However it could be used in that way, I imagine

[Kazinski]

We need it to track benefits that only citizens are eligible for, like passports.

And to track political reliability.

And passports are prima facie evidence of political unreliability.

You've been dead on in accessing what the administration is attempting all along Lathrop.

[Bubba Jones]

We won’t even use e verify for employment.

Maybe start there before expanding.

[not guilty]

President Trump is reportedly questioning whether Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York, is a United States citizen, and Trump has suggested that Mamdani could be in the country illegally. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/01/trump-zohran-mamdani-citizenship-00435613

Like too many of his supporters, Trump cares nothing for truth or falsity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't think it unreasonable to request one running for a high public office to produce evidence of being qualified to do so, i.e. birth certificate or equivalent.

[Martinned]

Do you think it is reasonable to take the citizenship of an opposition politician away if he wins the wrong election?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't think that we should be trying to disqualify opposing party candidates. In part I think that because the right to vote was originally the right to vote for anybody you damned well pleased, qualified or not. Attempts to stop people from being able to vote for whoever they wanted only began relatively recently in historical terms. The historical application of qualifications was at the OTHER end of the process, when you tried to take office. People were allowed to waste their votes on unqualified candidates.

It's not like he's running for federal office; States are entitled to permit non-citizens to hold their own offices. Might be awkward governing by zoom call from abroad, but being deported wouldn't technically be an obstacle to being Mayor.

But they'd better have an absurdly strong case if they try to deport him. MUCH stronger than any of the cases against Trump were.

[not guilty]

"But they'd better have an absurdly strong case if they try to deport him. MUCH stronger than any of the cases against Trump were."

Brett, leaving aside that no one has sought to deport Trump, suppose you were a federal official drafting a petition to deport Zohran Mamdani -- a naturalized American citizen since 2018. What would you allege?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? What would you allege, NG?

[not guilty]

Not my circus; not my monkeys, XY. I'm not seeking to deport Mr. Mamdani.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nor is Brett. It's your hypo.

[Brett Bellmore]

"leaving aside that no one has sought to deport Trump,"

Well, you SHOULD leave aside that nobody sought to deport him, because I was comparing the strength of the cases. Where the ultimate objective, keeping the opposition figure out of office, would be the same, even if the mechanics might differ.

"suppose you were a federal official drafting a petition to deport Zohran Mamdani -- a naturalized American citizen since 2018. What would you allege?"

I suppose you'd have to allege, in general terms, that he'd come by that citizenship fraudulently. That's the normal basis of denaturalization, now, isn't it?

I don't know of any basis for arguing that. I wouldn't assume that, if you investigated him, you wouldn't find such a basis. I have no idea what you might find, and am agnostic as to whether you'd find it.

I was simply stating that if you did try it, you'd better have an absurdly strong case, to overcome the general illegitimacy of targeting an opposition politician. Is that a sentiment you disagree with?

A much stronger case than the cases that were brought against Trump with the aim of keeping him from regaining the Presidency, all of which were real garbage cases, legally.

[not guilty]

In other words, you have no clue whereof you speak. But that doesn't stop you from going sideways at the topic.

Thank you for this rare moment of candor.

[Brett Bellmore]

You asked a hypothetical question, you have no standing to complain that you got a hypothetical answer.

[Michael P]

Presumably some fraud that was material to his naturalization, such as not disclosing a past serious crime or affiliation with a terrorist group. That's the usual basis for denaturalizing someone: it happened to a lot of Nazis, a few Bosnian Serbs who participated in that genocide, and a number of others who committed less severe offenses like bigamy or drug dealing. (To be clear, I am not aware of any allegation of that sort relating to Mamdani.)

[not guilty]

"(To be clear, I am not aware of any allegation of that sort relating to Mamdani.)"

But if people want to engage in unhinged conjecture, that's hunky dory??

[Michael P]

You asked a question that was clearly not rhetorical. Complaining when people answer your question is entirely your style.

[Magister]

MAGAs do in fact believe that.

“Is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to.” - Peggy Noonan

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's obvious that the allegation for Mamdani would probably be something related to his being a communist. One of the grounds for inadmissibility is membership in a totalitarian party, and communist parties are typically construed to be such. And rightfully so!

Again, I've no idea whether you could actually prove he'd been a member of a communist party. Just being ideologically a communist wouldn't cut it. You need to have been a capital "C" Communist.

[Malika the Maiz]

Your citation seems to say it would also need proved that they were knowing members within the past 5 years it seems.

[not guilty]

Brett, Mr. Mamdami came to the United States in 1998 at age 7. I seriously doubt that he had any political party affiliation prior to his admission.

[Armchair]

But the citizenship oath is also incompatable with affiliation in a communist party, as linked below.

And Mamdami was very much an adult then....

[Brett Bellmore]

And it wouldn't count for legal purposes away, being prior to the age of 16.

I really don't think this is going anywhere, it's just letting off steam.

[minus the clever name]

YES, and the Founders would be in virtually full agreement.

[Krayt]

Do you think it is reasonable to take the citizenship of an opposition politician away if he wins the wrong election?

Exactly. They should stick with endless investigstions, arrests, dig through his past, impeach him, remove from office, and get him ineligible for the next election. Maybe the previous election.

[Martinned]

"Endless investigations" certainly seem to be more on brand for the US, that's true. I don't know about the others, though.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean they did that stuff to Trump in large part because he didn’t win an election but kept insisting he did and tried to remain in power illegally.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, except for the fact that they started it well before the 2020 election, sure.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean if we’re doing “started it” I think the party of “Get the Clintons!” isn’t exactly complaining in good faith here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at Bill Cosby -- no one said anything about the way he treated women until he started saying that the Black community had to start taking responsibility for itself.

[Martinned]

You've figured it out! Bill Cosby is simply the victim of a conspiracy!

[minus the clever name]

No, that is illogical to say. Both things could be true.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, what does a birth certificate have to do with serving as mayor of New York?

[Supremacy Claus]

A review and nitpicking of the citizenship application is lawfare. It is fair since the Dem enemy does it everyday.

[Malika the Maiz]

Crazy people don’t have principles. Back to the asylum, Behar!

[David Nieporent]

I don't think it's unreasonable to request one running for a high public office to produce evidence of being qualified to do so, i.e., prove that he's not an insurrectionist.

[RedheadedPharoh]

If he lied during his naturalization process, he should be held accountable.
He doesn't get a free pass because he is a Democrat anymore.

[not guilty]

"If" is doing some heavy lifting there, RedheadedPharoh. As Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, "If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY&t=9s

[RedheadedPharoh]

Anytime "if" is used it does the exact same heavy lifting... d'uh

[TwelveInchPianist]

As I've said before in these threads, I think the fourteenth amendment should be interpreted to give preclusive effect to a finding that one is eligible for naturalization. But that's not the current law.

[minus the clever name]

That would be a "YES" in human language
But being sneaky and pompous it should also count as a NO based on what kind of person is saying it

[Riva]

Good thing we have heroes with the courage to run for office like Mamdani who understand that violence is an artificial construct and that radical socialism and the global intifada can finally put the city on the right path to…well something at any rate. Truly exemplary of American ideals.

[Armchair]

how could I forget about violence being a social construct....

Odd Mr. Mandami decided to increase his own personal security detail though. Maybe it's just a social construct for "other people".

[Riva]

We're rather spoiled for choice. Some of his other gems, as Francis Menton notes in the Manhattan Contrarian: “Under capitalism, housing is a commodity from which landlords & developers extract huge profits while our communities suffer eviction, foreclosure & displacement.”; “We need to dramatically curtail the power & presence of the NYPD.”; and “[A] statue of Columbus remains in Astoria, in defiance of the values of humanity, empathy & justice that we stand for.”

And, last but not least (maybe his crowing idiocies), he believes all good socialists like himself should believe in “boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel” and “the end goal of seizing the means of production.”

[Armchair]

I mean....
8 USC 1182: Inadmissible aliens:
"(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party
(i) In general Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible."

In 2021 Mandami was pubically adcovating for” certain issues socialists “firmly believe in” — such as boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel and “the end goal of seizing the means of production” — are unpopular at the moment but should still be championed. "

He became a US Citizen in 2018. If he....misled...on his immigration and/or naturalization forms about his communist "affiliations". Well....

[jb]

First, he was already a citizen in 2021.

Second, having socialist beliefs does not imply membership in any particular political party.

Third, just wow. You're suggesting that US citizens can be denaturalized and deported purely based on political beliefs with no proof needed other than political speech. Do you think maybe at some point trying to defend everything Trump says had broken your brain?

[minus the clever name]

IF naturalization means anything of course it implies the right and duty sometimes of denaturalization.

[Malika the Maiz]

RedheadedPharoh 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Anytime "if" is used it does the exact same heavy lifting... d'uh

[LexAquilia]

Do people like you and ng not really know what the word "if" means and how it's used?

[Malika the Maiz]

People like minus the clever name? Lol

[not guilty]

Use of the prefatory word "if" as a license to engage in groundless speculation and conjecture about a political opponent is despicable. If there is no factual basis for the supposition, such that it serves no purpose other than inviting others to speculate, it is one variety of the Big Lie.

The following appears in Donald Trump's bedside reader, Mein Kampf:

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

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

[David Nieporent]

The following appears in Donald Trump's bedside reader, Mein Kampf:

False. For one thing, "reader" implies reading; for Trump it would be more like a bedside prop than a beside reader. Second, it was a book of Hitler's speeches, not Mein Kampf.

[LexAquilia]

I used "if" just like the NAZIs!!!

It's anudda shoah!

[jb]

If the abolition of slavery means anything of course it implies the right and duty sometimes of re-enslavement.

See how dumb that sounds?

[ducksalad]

Here's one we could debate:

"If the pardon power means anything of course it implies the power and duty sometimes of revoking a past administration's pardons."

[Armchair]

"First, he was already a citizen in 2021."
True. In fact, I deliberately mentioned he became a citizen in 2018.

Still...pretty fast turnaround time. Three years from Citizen to giving speeches in front of socialists about "seizing the means of production." It's not impossible he may have had..."affiliations" with communist parties before that

"Second, having socialist beliefs does not imply membership in any particular political party."

-Well....I wouldn't go that far. Going around giving speeches about "the end goal of seizing the means of production" implies one might have communist affiliations. Like going around citing how wonderful Mein Kampf, how Aryans are the master race and Jews are the enemy of humanity implies one might have Nazi affiliations.

-Very much looking further into.

"Third, just wow. You're suggesting that US citizens can be denaturalized... "

No.... I'm suggesting that if a US Citizen gives evidence in public speeches that they may have lied on their naturalization forms, then it is worth looking further into those potential lies. An investigation. Our INS and citizenship workers are very much overworked. And Mr Mandami may have potentially "forgotten" to mention his affiliation with certain communist groups.

An investigation, in light of new evidence uncovered. That's all. He could be innocent.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You do know that the very definition of "socialism" is state ownership of the means of production, right?

Some socialists are communists, just as some MAGAts are NAZIs...

In any case, if every naturalized citizen can forever be investigated whenever they become a problem, you actually have established two classes of citizenship. Well done!

[LexAquilia]

And just how every NAZI (real ones) were socialists.

[Armchair]

"In any case, if every naturalized citizen can forever be investigated "

...when evidence comes up that they may have lied on their naturalization forms....

[Sarcastr0]

There is no evidence he lied.

I also think it says a lot that rather than talking about his platform, you're off on this speculative attack on his status.

Makes me think he's onto something.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You appear to like the idea that political opponents can be "investigated" any time the unitary executive desires.

Color me surprised!

Somehow, that wouldn't be "election interference", of course...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Or lawfare.

[minus the clever name]

any citizen can forever be investigated. if it's warranted it can happen.

[shawn_dude]

There was a time when people might have trusted the government to behave responsibly when given limits as vague as "when evidence comes up" but those days ended on Jan 20th 2025 when the GOP purged the federal professional workforce in order to install political loyalists.

Now we have vague "emergencies" that require McCarthy style deployments of masked troops to quell the undesirables, scoop them up in unmarked vans, and whisk them away to random prisons without a warrant. Legal immigrants are having their status revoked after speaking out on topics the administration doesn't like because the Secretary of State says they're a "risk" to national security.

For those that aren't smirking at the obvious abuse of power here, you could check out the play by Eric Bentley, "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been." Or, consider "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller. Both of these plays are based on true events and deal with situations where "evidence comes up" and results in very bad things.

[Don Nico]

"some MAGAts are NAZIs"
But they are democratic Nazis, so that is alright

[jb]

The important (and pretty obvious) thing you're missing here is that believing some of the same things as communists does not make you a member of the Communist Party (or affiliated with the Communist Party).

There's plenty of reason to believe that Mamdani is some sort of socialist. He calls himself a democratic socialist. But his only statements about communism are explicitly saying that he's not one. Other than than folks like you trying to gin up a new Red Scare, there's zero evidence that he's any sort of communist much less actually being a member of the Communist Party.

[Armchair]

And Paul Knauer wasn't a member of the Nazi party either.

And yet...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/654/

[jb]

I assume you wanted to point our attention to this part?

6. Great tolerance and caution are necessary lest good faith exercise of the rights of citizenship be turned against the naturalized citizen and used to deprive him of the cherished status. P. 328 U. S. 658.
7. Ill-tempered expressions, extreme views, even the promotion of ideas which run counter to our American ideals, are not to be given disloyal connotations in the absence of solid, convincing evidence that that is their significance. P. 328 U. S. 658.

Actually reading the case is helpful in other ways as well, since his denaturalization was based on a different law and the fact that he was still loyal to another country, which indeed has nothing to do with whether or not he is the member of any particular political party. But that's very different than the laws you're citing, which do in fact require membership in the Communist Party.

[not guilty]

Armchair, Mr. Mandami came to New York at age 7. Do you posit that he was then a Communist Party member?

[Armchair]

Of course there's also...

"On Oct. 2, USCIS issued policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to address inadmissibility based on membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party. Membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party is inconsistent and incompatible with the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, which includes pledging to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.”"

https://www.uscis.gov/archive/uscis-issues-policy-guidance-regarding-inadmissibility-based-on-membership-in-a-totalitarian-party#:~:text=other%20totalitarian%20party.-,Membership%20in%20or%20affiliation%20with%20the%20Communist%20Party%20or%20any,laws%20of%20the%20United%20States.%E2%80%9D

[LawTalkingGuy]

You think a 7 year old was a member of the communist party?

[Armchair]

You failed to read what was said...

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Armchair, Mr. Mandami came to New York at age 7. Do you posit that he was then a Communist Party member?”

“Of course there's also...”

What else could you mean by this other than to indicate a belief that you think 7 year olds can be communists?

[Armchair]

"On Oct. 2, USCIS issued policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to address inadmissibility based on membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party. Membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party is inconsistent and incompatible with the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, which includes pledging to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Read the section in bold. Re-read it Then figure out how old Mr. Mandami was when Mr. Mandami took the naturalization oath.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’s not what NG or I asked you. Let me repeat the convo:

NG: Armchair, Mr. Mandami came to New York at age 7. Do you posit that he was then a Communist Party member?”

You: Of course there’s also

What other inference am I supposed to draw other than that you think that 7 year old Mamdani was a communist and that 7 year olds can be communists?

[Armchair]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse at this point with ng.

My initial point was "If he....misled...on his immigration and/or naturalization forms"

My response was in regards to "Naturalization forms".

Also, one doesn't do immigration forms "just" upon entry to the US.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. I’m not. He asked you a specific question about whether Mamdani was a communist when he was 7 you responded “of course.” Instead of saying “no” when asked for clarification you’ve been bullshitting about things we didn’t ask you.

[tylertusta]

If an alien comes to the United States but later does something while in the US to make themselves inadmissible, are they inadmissible?

[Armchair]

Why yes!

Peter Harisiades[6] was a Greek immigrant who came to the United States at 13 years old with his father in 1916. At the time of this case, he was married with two kids; his wife and kids were all American citizens. He joined the Communist Party USA (then the Worker's Party) in 1925 and was kicked out of the organization in 1939 as a part of the party's attempt to protect its non-citizen members, whose membership put them in danger of deportation.[7] A warrant was issued for his deportation on December 16, 1948.[8] Harisiades was represented at the Supreme Court by Carol Weiss King.[9]

Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote for the majority. The majority affirmed the lower court's ruling on the case, rejecting the plaintiff's request to prevent their deportations. It concluded that the law and its application in these cases did not deprive the residents of liberty without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment, constitute an overstep by Congress,[12] violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech/assembly clause, cause severe hardship as to violate the Due Process Clause, nor constitute an unconstitutional ex post facto law.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harisiades_v._Shaughnessy

[tylertusta]

That's what I thought. It makes Mr. Guilty's attempt to shape this discussion through a snuck premise all the more dishonest.

[Ridgeway]

Harisiades was not a US citizen (naturalized or otherwise). Big difference.

Also, given the developments in 1A law since 1952, I doubt that case would come out the same today, and doubt even more strongly that it would be extended to cover denaturalization proceedings.

[tylertusta]

No, I don't see it as much of a difference at all. Setting aside the 1A issue, if he lied in order to get his citizenship then his naturalization can be revoked.

As for the 1A issue, whether aliens have a 1A right to be communists may not be as easy of a question as you think.

[not guilty]

"No, I don't see it as much of a difference at all. Setting aside the 1A issue, if he lied in order to get his citizenship then his naturalization can be revoked."

What federal statute(s) are you relying on there, tylertusta?

(Not a rhetorical question. I haven't looked up the applicable statutes.)

[tylertusta]

USCIS has links to applicable statutes.

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2

[Armchair]

Here's a nice case for you, ng....

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/654/

[Sarcastr0]

Such a friend of liberty you would wreck freedom of speech to defend it.

I’m not sure you realize what you are admitting to in supporting this shit.

[Armchair]

Well, Ilya Somin has told us repeatedly how bad Communism is... and if a "not-a-communist" communist is taking over NYC, then...

[Sarcastr0]

Prof. Somin wants a holiday.

You want McCarthyism on steroids. The impact on people, and on freedom of thought, is very different. You are also working hard to not think about what socialism means, what communism is, what party affiliation means. and how time and causality work.

As I said, if you're sincere in this shit, you're an enemy of liberty.

But you're more about passion than rationality, so it's more that in your posting persona you lack the character to reflect and grow, and have thus remained a child.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He’s Mr. G.

[Sarcastr0]

I get more of an antisemite in the Sartre sense.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors.”

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think there’s some overlap between the open-minded contrarian Mr. G who consistently and intellectually defends the indefensible and Sarte’s antisemite. They’re both types of dominance games played by weak men.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's reasonable to want McCarthyism on steroids. (And maybe some antibuse, too...) Communism isn't any better than Nazism, after all.

[bernard11]

Well, it's reasonable to want McCarthyism on steroids.

Wow. Just wow. Let's haul anyone who has ever advocated socialism before a Congressional Committee and harass and threaten them, get them fired, etc.

Brett, the libertarian advocate of punishing thought crime, or anti-government speech. Fucking joke.

[LexAquilia]

Regardless of your Red Washing of History, McCarthy was clearly correct.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said, communism isn't any better than Nazism. If anything it's worse, it demonstrated more staying power, which is why Stalin racked up a bigger body count than Hitler did.

And as we learned when the KGB archives were temporarily opened after the fall of the USSR, McCarthy was right about how extensively penetrated by communist spies the federal government was.

Oh, and just in case you're still in denial: The Rosenbergs were guilty as hell.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Brett, like many self-described libertarians, thinks libertarianism only works if there is a community of people who look and think like Brett. A kind of herrenvolk libertarianism, if you will. It’s perfectly acceptable for government to forcibly repress those outside the volk or those whose ideas are inconsistent his in order to maintain the libertarian society. This kind of attitude makes them simps for right-wing authoritarian and fascist movements.

[David Nieporent]

Communism isn't any better than Nazism, after all.

Neither is MAGA.

[David Nieporent]

He came to the U.S. at age 7. As a result, I doubt he led, or misled, on any immigration form.

[mulched]

It's his naturalization in 2018, not his original immigration that is the issue.

I doubt there's a problem with his application, but at least cut out the "He was only 7!" crap.

[Mr. Bumble]

David Notimportant is a proud graduate of Queenie's School of Obfuscation and Deflection.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"David Notimportant"
Do you have the slightest idea how childish you sound? My God man, how old are you?

[Armchair]

"but at least cut out the "He was only 7!" crap."

--It's all they really have, the "7 year old" crap. (Also, David misses the point that things like Green Card applications are not considered naturalization, but immigration...and they typically don't happen upon entry.)

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think you're going to pull off 'that's all they have' when you're the one arguing that it's legit to deport the US citizen Democratic mayoral candidate from NY.

You got some distinguishable cases, a hard-core misunderstanding of modern First Amendment law, and an especially naked case of MAGA unamerican authoritarianism.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, "all they really have" is that you people are pathetic and dishonest POS, since there's not even one iota of evidence that he lied on anything. He's not getting denaturalized or deported, and this is all just trolling.

Also, I have no idea why you're talking about green card applications — which, as you admit, is not about naturalization — when the topic is naturalization.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“As long as mankind is nationally and territorially organized in states, a stateless person is not simply expelled from one country, native or adopted, but from all countries—none being obliged to receive and naturalize him—which means he is actually expelled from humanity. Deprivation of citizenship consequently could be counted among the crimes against humanity, and some of the worst recognized crimes in this category have in fact, and not incidentally, been preceded by mass expatriations. The state’s right of capital punishment in case of murder is minor compared with its right to denaturalization, for the criminal is judged according to the laws of the country, under which he possesses rights, and he is by no means put outside the pale of the law altogether.”

—Hannah Arendt

[minus the clever name]

True but that would seem a condemnation of Biden/Harris and a plaudit of Trump. She never said that the legal contract of citizen with country should just be trivialized.

The highest laws of the land (America) are not only the constitution and constitutional laws, but also contracts.” -Hannah Arendt

[Malika the Maiz]

Specific > general

[LawTalkingGuy]

The only person trivializing citizenship is Trump.

https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/death-to-america

[Frank Drackman]

I’m content to let the Mosaad handle it

[LawTalkingGuy]

You want a foreign intelligence agency to assassinate one of our citizens running for office because you disagree with him?

[Frank Drackman]

I'll take the 5th

[Bwaaah]

LOL. LTG trying to get Frank Drackman to incriminate himself.

Don't do it, Frank! Don't do it!

LTG: "You want that, Frank? You want that?"

LTG dares to lead Frank Drackman into admission? Frank Drackman does NOT admit that!

This dovetails nicely into that "presumption of innocence" thing we all believe in. Frank Drackman is innocent. I think we can all get behind that.

[hobie]

Back to the old, thoroughly non-racist, birther schtik from the orange anchor baby. A squirrel the rubes never tire of

[Dr. Ed 2]

An interesting mess in the wealthy town of North Andover:
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/north-andover-police-shooting-kelsey-fitzsimmons/

A 209A is she has to leave her home -- that likely is what the 'escorting' was about, and leave her infant behind. This is a stunt that women usually pull on men.

But then there is this:
"Court documents said that Fitzsimmons allegedly had a baby in February, then in March, North Andover Police and EMTs responded to her home for a "female having a mental health episode." She was then hospitalized for 12 hours, diagnosed with post-partum depression and handed over her weapon, documents show. In June she was cleared to return to work and her license to carry a firearm was reinstated. " [emphasis added]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

I have been told (in a conference) that if one is committed, one never gets the gun license back -- and she not only got it back 3 months later, but was considered healthy enough to be a police officer?!?

This is going to get very interesting....

And no, I do not approve of 209A orders.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Your quote doesn't say she was committed. Perhaps she was voluntarily hospitalized.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This one does:
"An off-duty officer who was shot at her home while a restraining order was served on her by North Andover police Monday night had her license to carry a firearm reinstated shortly before the incident.

North Andover police officer Kelsey Fitzsimmons, 28, was on administrative leave at the time of the shooting. Her firearms license had been suspended since March, after she was held on a Section 12 order for mental health issues at Lawrence General Hospital."[emphasis added]
https://www.eagletribune.com/news/merrimack_valley/update-officer-who-was-shot-recently-had-firearms-license-reinstated/article_f79d214b-a5f6-4b41-a8fa-95dea4da6308.html

[wvattorney13]

I don't know what happened here, but you only lose firearms rights if you are involuntarily committed which is a pain in the ass legal process. A stay in the hospital for observation for a short time is not an involuntary commitment unless it goes down that road.

Usually they tell the person that they are staying one way or the other so it is easier just to quit fighting. And when they do, either because they calm down or are given good sedatives, there is no record of an involuntary commitment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is Taxachusetts, and while what you say is true of Federal law, we were told that MA law was different and even a pink slip ended gun rights.

[Frank Drackman]

“I have been told”
Dr Ed’s version of 45/47/(48?)’s
“People are saying”
I’ll play!
“People are saying (in a Conference) Dr Ed is an Idiot”

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Be careful -- this janitor has a DSM-V...

🙂

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, They had just published DSM-3 (and they don't use Roman Numerals for the editions, just regular Arabic numerals (and why do Arabs use different "Arabic numerals" than the Arabic numerals we use) so I question whether you really have one.
Where was I, oh yes, DSM-3 had just come out when I took my Psych rotation, we were supposed to buy one, and I did, since Uncle Sam was paying for it, and of course, sold it back to the University Book Store, because it was worthless.
Seriously, amazing that the Shrinks can make mental illness boring, while Morrison & Boyd's "Organic Chemistry" is a good read just from a literary perspective (my 3rd Edition actually looked like a thick Bible)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

The DSM-V came out about 2012, before that it was the DSM-IV-IR.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know anything about this or why we should care, but the link does have yet another example of what Radley Balko has called the exonerative tense:

"When one of the officers was escorting Ms. Fitzsimmons during the service of the court order, an armed confrontation took place. As a result of that armed confrontation, one of the responding officers discharged their weapon, which struck Ms. Fitzsimmons once," Tucker told reporters Tuesday.

In the actual English language, one of the cops shot this woman. In the exonerative tense, the weapon was discharged "which struck her once." (It's also badly phrased in saying that the weapon, rather than a bullet, struck her.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

They may have failed at the exonerative tense.
"...one of the responding officers discharged their weapon, which struck Ms. Fitzsimmons once..." is onerative.

"One of the officer's weapons discharged. Ms. Fitzsimmons was struck once..." is correct.

[John F. Carr]

Once upon a time being held overnight for observation cost you your gun rights forever. Some time after Heller the First Circuit overruled that precedent.

[Kazinski]

The 2nd quarter wrapped up Monday and here are the SP500 quarterly returns for the first half of the year. Q2 was the best quarter since 20023 q4, and Q1 was the worst quarter since Q3 2022, so neither was particularly remarkable.

2025 Q1 -4.55%
2025 Q2 10.42%

[Martinned]

1. Announce a bunch of tarriffs, run the stock exchange into the ground.

2. Undo most of those tarriffs, stock market goes up.

3. Profit!

It's basically the economics equivalent of bombing Iran, ending your bombing campaign, and then announcing you've brought peace to the Middle East.

[Kazinski]

Win-Win then.

[Riva]

You forgot the monies being invested in America and industrial capacity moving back to this country. And the added benefit of tariff revenue.

But we could always go back to the old ways that really made a handful of democrats rich beyond Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi’s dreams of avarice.

[David Nieporent]

And the added benefit of tariff revenue.

Taxes, of course, are a cost, not a benefit, to the public.

[Kazinski]

Taxes as we all know are a necessary evil.

The fewer the better, but of course the level of spending is the primary factor in determining what is necessary.

I'm sensing an opportunity for a grand bargain here, since everyone seems to agree taxes are bad, lets all agree to cut spending drastically so we can cut taxes too.

Or is the anti-tax rhetoric just an attempt at MAGA code switching?

[bernard11]

Being anti-tariff is not being anti-tax, though I do wish mofre MAGAt's understood that tariffs are taxes.

It is instead being against stupid and unnecessarily destructive taxes.

[minus the clever name]

Matrtin, your lack of Economics training is obvious but your insulation from the news is remarkable

Wall Street economist who ripped Trump admits prez may have ‘outsmarted all of us’ on tariffs
By Ariel Zilber
Published June 27, 2025

THE ECONOMIC TIMES (link)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/did-everyone-underestimate-trump-top-economist-admits-president-may-have-outfoxed-critics-on-the-economy/articleshow/122147194.cms?from=mdr

'This would seem like a victory for the world and yet would produce $400 billion of annual revenue for US taxpayers. Trade partners will be happy with only 10 per cent tariffs and US tax revenue will go up. Maybe the administration has outsmarted all of us, the Apollo Chief Economist noted."

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...as you say, unremarkable market variation; 15-20pt swings are not uncommon at all during the course of a year. Shaping up to be a rather good year. My intl index funds are doing wonderfully; bonds have real yield for the first time in a long time.

It will not be hard to exceed The Cauliflower's economic record.

Where is the inflation we were confidently told by eurotrash (and others) would immediately devastate the land?

Their economic predictions are about as accurate as their SCOTUS predictions, which is to say, not very accurate at all.

[Martinned]

It's a difficult one to call. Authoritarianism and a breakdown of the rule of law are bad for all business, but crony capitalism is good for the stock market valuations of the companies on the receiving end of that cronyism (and bad for the economy in general). So it depends on which metrics you look at, but for at least some metrics, like the stock market, the net effect is difficult to call.

[Martinned]

For example, at the time of writing Paramount is already up 2% in pre-market trading because it paid Trump a $16m bribe. That's a pretty good return on investment right there...

[Kazinski]

'When you strike at a king, you better not miss.'

- dozens of attributions

Paramount missed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If you plan to treat mere speech as, "strike at the king," then count yourself a tyrant.

[Bwaaah]

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Lord Kaz stands unmoved.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
For example, at the time of writing Paramount is already up 2% in pre-market trading because it paid Trump a $16m bribe. That's a pretty good return on investment right there...

Mr. missing clever named nailed with his comment "Matrtin, your lack of Economics training is obvious ..."

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned -
Paramont/Cee more BS settled before discovery. Why? $16m is not a nuisance payoff.

[Martinned]

No, it's not a nuisance payoff. It's a bribe. This is how they get their merger cleared.

[Martinned]

Speaking of selling bullshit, this reaction by the honorable senator from the state of Oregon is of course also bullshit.

Paramount just paid Trump a bribe for merger approval. When Democrats retake power, I’ll be first in line calling for federal charges. In the meantime, state prosecutors should make the corporate execs who sold out our democracy answer in court, today.

The Supreme Court has made Trump immune from charges, and nobody at the state level is going to prosecute Paramount.

[Joe_dallas]

The underlying issue remains valid -
Highly doctored expose on KH that was likely campaign finance violation

[David Nieporent]

No, it doesn't, retard. Nothing was "highly doctored," and it is 1,000% legal. This goes beyond your usual pretense to expertise in topics you know nothing about to outright, well, lying. There is not even a possible campaign finance violation. CBS could have said, "We're going to lie about Harris in order to help her win," and it would not have anything to do with campaign finance law.

[Joe_dallas]

So you are okay with flat out media lying

Dishonest N shows he has no problem with ethics if it benefits leftists.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
No, it doesn't, retard. Nothing was "highly doctored,"

Compare and contrast the transcripts - Highly doctored is an understatement.
Your deflection is a flat out lie - That has become your standard tradement - Distortion, dishonesty and deflection

[David Nieporent]

So you are okay with flat out media lying

Dishonest N shows he has no problem with ethics if it benefits leftists.

Not clear whether bookkeeper_joe is lying or illiterate. Or both. I said nothing about being "okay with" anything. I said it was not a campaign finance violation. I'm not "okay with" flat out bookkeeper_joe lying, but I don't think you ought to go to jail for it.

[David Nieporent]

Compare and contrast the transcripts - Highly doctored is an understatement.

No, it's just a lie. It is normal and accepted practice for non-live interview, whether print or audio/video, to be edited for time/space and clarity. There's nothing nefarious about it.

[Michael P]

The evidence suggests that Paramount decided that keeping the unedited transcript of Trump's interview with "60 Minutes" secret was worth $16M, not that there was a $16M bribe.

[Martinned]

Sure. Or it could be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_merger_of_Skydance_Media_and_Paramount_Global

[minus the clever name]

So you are saying Kamala might sue ? How clueless you are. That would hurt her immensely.

[Kazinski]

Or probably even more telling the internal deliberations conversations about making the edits.

That could kill CBS news as a brand.

[David Nieporent]

No, the evidence does not suggest that, since they did not keep it secret.

[bernard11]

They kept it secret? Then how does Joe_Dallas know what was in it?

[David Nieporent]

I think it's more appropriately characterized as extortion rather than a bribe. Paramount isn't paying this because it wants to; it's paying this because Trump said "Nice merger you've got here; shame if anything were to happen to it."

[Joe_dallas]

Dishonest DN has a problem with the facts - The facts dont look pretty for paramont.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/07/paramount-settles-with-trump.php

[Sarcastr0]

If you're gonna be a tool, you should find better sources to tool around with than Powerline.

[Joe_dallas]

What do you think is a better source -
NPR?
CBS?
MSNBC?
Fox?

Quite a few sources with much greater accuracy and fairness than leftists beloved MSM

[David Nieporent]

Powerline is not a news source at all, but a blog that provides commentary. Nothing wrong with commentary, but it's not even in the right discussion as the others. (Well, Fox barely does news anymore; it's almost all just punditry.)

[David Nieporent]

If you're gonna be a tool, you should find better sources to tool around with than Powerline.

What difference does it make, since — as I just pointed out — Powerline contradicts his position anyway?

[David Nieporent]

This suit is 1,000,000% frivolous. Trump doesn't even have a colorable claim. The statute doesn't apply to these facts and would violate the 1A if it did. And your own link doesn't even support your uninformed retard position! From Powerline:

Personally, I doubt that Trump’s case against CBS was legally meritorious.

And from this, bookkeeper_joe concludes that "The facts don't look pretty for paramont [sic]"!

[Mr. Bumble]

" If the case was outrageously unconstitutional, why didn’t CBS just move for summary judgment?"
From the linked Powerline article.

[Commenter_XY]

It is not at at all difficult to call. Try looking at history, eurotrash.

The US has the most open, free and transparent markets in the world, eurotrash. That is a significant driver of investment. People like you, eurotrash, have been betting against America since 1789; and you're the losers in that bet.

[Martinned]

The US has the most open, free and transparent markets in the world

It doesn't, and has never had. It has non-tariff barriers up the wahzoo, mountains of paperwork, etc.

People like you, eurotrash, have been betting against America since 1789

People like me have been betting in favour of the US since 1776: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sint_Eustatius#%22First_Salute%22

We shared an interest in stealing native land and resources, which is an excellent way to make white people rich.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You're White, have you given back your ill gotten gains?

[Martinned]

The whole reason why I grew up where I did is because my ancestors *didn't* go to foreign lands to steal stuff.

[Frank Drackman]

You’re welcome for not having to speak German

[ThePublius]

Martinned 2 hours ago:
"We shared an interest in stealing native land and resources, which is an excellent way to make white people rich."

Martinned 12 minutes ago:
"The whole reason why I grew up where I did is because my ancestors *didn't* go to foreign lands to steal stuff."

You're so full of it. You have all white Americans inheriting everything white people have done for centuries, and then you distance yourself from all Dutch over the centuries. You Dutch don't have an exactly clean record regarding 'going to foreign lands to steal stuff.' Or going to foreign lands to steal people, for that matter.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The whole reason why I grew up where I did is because my ancestors *didn't* go to foreign lands to steal stuff."
Did you fail Dutch history or did they just not teach the history of Dutch colonialism?

[Swede425]

LOL!
I live next to Holland, Michigan and Zeeland, Michigan where you can't swing a wooden clog without knocking a Dutchie over.
You know who doesn't live there anymore? The Ottawa.

[Martinned]

Take it up with the Dutch people who settled there at times when my ancestors lived in wooden huts.

[Swede425]

What were your ancestors living in when the Dutch were plundering Africa for slaves, Windmill boy?

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's have some historical accuracy: The Africans were plundering Africa for slaves, the Dutch were just buying some of them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Dutch were just buying some of them"

Dutch were busier making slaves of the people of the Dutch East Indies.

[bernard11]

Let's have some historical accuracy: The Africans were plundering Africa for slaves, the Dutch were just buying some of them.

Just???

Guess what, Brett. If someone shows up in Africa with cash to buy slaves someone else in Africa is going to supply them. Don't try to exonerate the buyers, Dutch or other. They were no less guilty than the sellers.

[Frank Drackman]

I heard the Ottawa left for Oklahoma.
They had "Reservations"

Frank "I crack myself up"

[bernard11]

I think the joke you're trying for, ineptly, is:

Restaurant host/ess: Good evening. Do you have reservations?

Guest: Yes, but we're going to eat here anyway.

[Bob from Ohio]

"whole reason why I grew up where I did is because my ancestors *didn't* go to foreign lands to steal stuff."

Maybe they went and then came back.

Thomas Pitt went to India, made a fortune [Pitt Diamond!] and went back to England. You may have heard of his grandson and great grandson, both born in England.

[Frank Drackman]

Who's this "We" you're talking about Paleface?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Authoritarianism and a breakdown of the rule of law are bad for all business"

Indeed they are, but they'd be nothing new in the US in recent history. Presidents have been usurping power and playing favorites in the market since at least FDR.

But I think business cares less about whether their being screwed with is technically lawful, and more about the absolute level of being screwed with, and the US is trending down in that regard right now, not up.

[Martinned]

the US is trending down in that regard right now, not up

If you believe that, I have a bridge you might like to buy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't doubt you disbelieve that, but you probably don't consider regulation of industry to be "screwing with".

[Sarcastr0]

“Free markets” require regulation. Antitrust, anti-insider training, trade secrets, IP,

You oversimplify.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — In the U.S., regulating industry can be, and overall has been, good for industry. For instance, pro-labor regulation and pattern bargaining opened the period of the greatest prosperity the U.S. auto industry ever enjoyed.

Myriad examples illustrate a principle that mutualizing regulatory burdens enables private industry to compete and grow at the same time. History offers so many examples, and such obvious ones, that it is pointless to begin listing them.

I will mention that I personally saw it at work in 3 inherently-dangerous steel fabrication shops where I worked. Two of them had grown to enormous size, and enjoyed at least national reputations. One was famous world-wide. Proportionate competitive advantages came with the package. Neither survived for less than a half-century, and the one that died early succumbed not to regulation, but to late-arriving B-School style mismanagement.

What they shared in common was ability and insight to exploit safety regulations as a workforce advantage, without losing out to less-safe competitors. That way, they could count on their pick of the best workers, and thus got long-term workforce stability. The latter enabled development of specialized worker skills. For instance, that formula made a shop in western Oregon a leading competitor for enormous steel fabrications sold nationwide.

One such work-piece I helped build was a stainless steel distillation column, built as a pressure vessel, nearly 300 feet tall Upon completion, it became the largest load Burlington Northern had ever shipped. It traveled to Louisiana aboard a train of 3 specially-built extra-long railroad cars, with the center car featuring a pivoting plinth upon which to poise the center of the horizontal column, to get it around the curves. It was shipped with a shorter, fatter companion, only a little more than 200 feet tall.

That company remains a thriving employer today, more than 40 years after I worked there. It is in fact one of the oldest businesses in Oregon, founded in the 19th century and still thriving.

It paid the best hourly wages I ever earned. It routinely offered unlimited overtime on generous terms. A worker young enough and strong enough could count on 30 hours of overtime a week, with the first 4 of those hours paying time-and-a-half, and the rest double-time. Holiday work paid triple-time.

So how does that example the evils of, "screwing with," private industry by regulation? I will tell you how. By disadvantaging smaller would-be competitors which might choose more-dangerous workplace standards as a means to compete better, by cutting costs. Those have to make do with the left-overs of the workforce, after safer places take their pick of workers so skilled they are in demand everywhere. The American Southeast has become famous for state-government-supported reliance on that model, and has suffered accordingly.

[bernard11]

I doubt you consider the lack of some types of regulation to be letting industry steal from the public, but that's often what it is.

[Michael P]

Democrats tried to sell the US citizenry a bridge last year. Two, in fact. We didn't buy either of them, and we're not interested in yours, either.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed. All 49.8% of you...

[Ska]

The 2% or so of independent voters really meant to vote Democrat, they just flipped the wrong switch.

[minus the clever name]

NYT contradicts you and that is not a conservative paper 🙂

If Everyone Had Voted, Harris Still Would Have Lost
New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout.

By Nate Cohn
June 26, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/upshot/turnout-2024-election-trump-harris.html

[minus the clever name]

After a riotous parade of abstract phrases we get 'difficult to call' -- and I guess we are supposed to shriek "Genius , Genius"

[Poxigah146]

On this, I agree. The reason for soaring profit margins and the stock market is that so much "profit" is concentrated in big tech, who have basically used anti-competitive behavior to steal advertising revenue from everyone else.

THIS is bad for the economy in general.

[jb]

Indeed: when folks on Wall Street figured out the TACO trade it was basically that Trump was going to create a lot of volatility but wouldn't in the end have that much effect on the economy. So you try to trade on the volatility rather than going either short or long.

Having said that, it's not just the market that is volatile but economic policy too, in a fairly unprecedented way. I don't think we really know what the results of that will be. One thing we do know is that Powell told us this week that the Fed isn't lowering rates because of Trump's tariffs, so there's certainly some drag on the economy as a result of the tariffs even if the result isn't cratering the stock market.

[Poxigah146]

That was a bullshit lie from Powell. He isn't lowering rates because he doesn't want the long end of the rate curve to blow out. It wouldn't do so because of tariffs, but because of the negative effects that he created by printing $3 trillion in 4 weeks in April of 2020.

[jb]

So you're saying it's not the tariffs, it's the OBBB? Because you may not be aware, before Trump came along the Fed was in the process of lowering rates.

In any case, it seems a lot more reasonable to believe the Chair of the Fed than some random guy on the Internet.

[Poxigah146]

The Chair of the Fed is not an unbiased observer. He's trying to make himself look better.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"The Chair of the Fed is not an unbiased observer. He's trying to make himself look better."
By managing inflation and unemployment?
To maintain a healthy economic trajectory so his decisions will be seen in the future as wise, and thus 'look better'?
How dare he!

[Kazinski]

Record Tariff revenue for the 2nd consecutive month is hardly TACO ingredients.

[Poxigah146]

That's because the stock market at this point is mostly rich people trading stocks back and forth at higher and higher valuations. The amounts you and I have in our accounts don't move the needle. What the top .1% do.

It no longer benefits America.

But you've just acknowledged that tariffs aren't paid for by Americans, they're paid for through corporate profit reduction, which is why the stock market dropped when the tariffs were announced. Most people still lie about that.

[Kazinski]

Well if you have completely given up on capitalism, there are other countries with other systems.

Economic ignorance from the right is no more attractive on the right than it is the left. In fact the only difference between you and Zohran Mamdani is you have a different solution to the same perceived problem.

[Poxigah146]

I haven't given up on capitalism. A Fed put is not capitalism.

[ReaderY]

In the oral argument on the Alien Enemies Act habeas case in the Fifth Circuit, petitioners were asked if they could identity a Supreme Court case permitting the judiciary to review a Presidential proclamation declaring the existence of an invasion or predatory incursion.

I think Ludecke provides such support. The Ludecke court expressly said that “Whether and when it would be open to this Court to find that a war, though merely formally kept alive, had in fact ended is a question too fraught with gravity even to be adequately formulated when not compelled.” Ludecke found it unnecessary to reach this question because, by judicially noticing “facts of public knowledge” like that the fact there large armies still in the field occupying a conquered Germany, and comparing it to 1919 precedent regarding the end of World War I, the Court concluded that there was enough publicly known evidence that an active war was still ongoing as to make judicial review unnecessary.

In other words, Ludecke reserved the question as to whether judicial review is permissable. While it called it a m question “fraught with gravity” and one the courts should avoid if possible, the Ludecke court nonetheless left open the possibility that, in circumstances where there is merely a paper war with no evidence of any genuine military activity, the judiciary might potentially be able to review even a Congressional declaration of war and conclude that there was in fact no war.

If it can potentially do this, then reviewing a Presidential proclamation would seem a much easier call. We are dealing, not with any inherent Presidential powers, but solely with powers delegated by Congress. Congress is assigned the power to declare war and repel invasions. In these matters the President only has such powers as Congress delegates. And the judiciary routinely reviews Executive acts that require Congressional authorization to be lawful to see if they are ultra vires and exceed delegated powers.

[RedheadedPharoh]

That's an interesting take, I wonder if that will show up in the record anywhere.

[wvattorney13]

You're missing the import of that question. When a judge asks you if you can cite a case with X, Y, and Z facts, the answer is always (to the judge) that you cannot because the question has loaded the dice against you by being so specific.

No, there is no case dealing with my exact facts which is what the judge wants you to concede so you lose.

[Riva]

The Court in no way reserved the question as to whether judicial review was permitted. They concluded quite plainly that it was a question concerning are “matters of political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility [and] not reviewable by the judicial branch.” Your interpretation would undermine the holding that “full responsibility for the just exercise of this great power may validly be left where the Congress has constitutionally placed it -- on the President of the United States.”

[not guilty]

Wrong, Riva. "[R]esort to the courts may be had only to challenge the construction and validity of the statute and to question the existence of the 'declared war,' as has been done in this case." Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 171 (1948). At footnote 17 the Court opined:

The additional question as to whether the person restrained is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older may also be reviewed by the courts. See cases cited note 8, supra. This question is not raised in this case.

Id., at 171 n.17.

[not guilty]

This proposition has been recently reaffirmed by SCOTUS:

Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to "'judicial review'" as to "questions of interpretation and constitutionality" of the Act as well as whether he or she "is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older." Ludecke, 335 U.S., at 163-164, 172, n. 17.

Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. ___, 145 S.Ct. 1003 (Apr 07, 2025).

[Martinned]

Well, theoretically. If they can get to a court before they're bundled off to a foreign gulag.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what's not subject to judicial review is whether, say, North Koreans are "enemy aliens", rather than just ordinary, every day aliens.

What IS subject to judicial review is whether Bob is a North Korean.

[Magister]

So, if the president proclaimed that people named Brett Bellmore are enemy aliens, your only recourse would be judicial review of whether that is your name? (Presumably also that you are 14 years of age or older.)

[Brett Bellmore]

No, and trivially so; The Enemy Aliens act only applies to aliens, it's right there in the name.

[Magister]

Good luck with that when you're already on your way to South Sudan or El Salvador.

[David Nieporent]

What's not subject to judicial review is the wisdom of utilizing the AEA against a particular person. Someone who's an alien enemy cannot say, "But I'm not a danger; the president is wrong to try to deport me." Or — to use Ludecke's argument — "Come on, the war's basically over."

But someone can absolutely say, "I'm not North Korean," or "We're not actually at war with North Korea."

[Riva]

You grossly misunderstand the language you quote in the context of this opinion. The Court simply recognized that the AEA as valid, noting "it [was] almost as old as the Constitution, and it would savor of doctrinaire audacity now to find the statute offensive to some emanation of the Bill of Rights." That pertained to the statute itself, NOT matters of judgment conferred by Congress on the President under that act. Those are “matters of political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility [and] not reviewable by the judicial branch.” Nothing in Trump v. J.G.G undermines that holding.

[ReaderY]

No, “the existence of a declared war” is something the Ludecke Court said the judiciary can factually review. And the language I quoted above suggests that under the right set of facts, the Court could find that a complete absence of prosecution means that, while the war has been “formally kept alive,” it is not in fact in effect.

[ReaderY]

Also, I think you are the one who misunderstands what the Court meant by these words. It was saying that UNDER THESE FACTS, it was not for the Court to say the President was wrong.

In particular, it said “It is not for is to question a belief by the President that aliens who were justifiably deemed fit subjects for internment during active hostilities do not lose their potency for mischief during the period of confusion and conflict which is characteristic of a state of war even when the guns are silent but the peace of Peace has not come.”

In other words, the Court found that the President was owed considerable deference, and it was within his prerogative to say that the state of war continues during the period when a conquered enemy country is being occupied and armies are in the field and no peace has been made. It is not the Court’s role to substitute its call for the President’s when the President’s call has, as the Ludecke zcourt found it had, at least some factual support.

But it most definitely did not say that a Presidential proclamation is never subject to factual review at all.

[Riva]

Again your construction directly contradicts the actual holding of the case. It is clear that you earnestly want to concede to the Court the power to review the political questions at issue in the case. You're certainly welcome to misapply the language of the opinion but that doesn't change the scope of the ruling.

[Martinned]

A more general thought, courtesy of the declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen of 1789:

Toute société dans laquelle la garantie des droits n'est pas assurée, ni la séparation des pouvoirs déterminée, n'a point de Constitution.

For the linguistically challenged:

Any society in which no provision is made for guaranteeing rights or for the separation of powers, has no Constitution.

[minus the clever name]

Most of the "Founding Father" figures had essentially soured on the French Revolution by the end of the 1790s.

Hannah Arendt would say of Martinned
""The sad truth of the matter is that the French Revolution, which ended in disaster, has made world history, while the American Revolution, so triumphantly successful, has remained an event of little more than local importance".

[Martinned]

For some reason that I can't quite put my finger on, I've been interested in how the Russian constitution works lately. It really is a marvellous document. Look at it!

Article 2

Man, his rights and freedoms are the supreme value. The recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen shall be the obligation of the State.

And look at how well they've sorted everything out!

Article 10

The state power in the Russian Federation shall be exercised on the basis of its division into legislative, executive and judicial power. The bodies of legislative, executive and judicial power shall be independent.

Article 11

1. The state power in the Russian Federation shall be exercised by the President of the Russian Federation, the Federal Assembly (the Council of the Federation and the State Duma), the Government of the Russian Federation, and the courts of the Russian Federation.

2. The state power in the subjects of the Russian Federation shall be exercised by the bodies of state authority created by them.

3. The division of subjects of authority and power among the bodies of state power of the Russian Federation and the bodies of state power of the subjects of the Russian Federation shall be fixed by the given Constitution, the Federal and other treaties on the delimitation of the subjects of authority and powers.

[Martinned]

Here is a link for people who want to read the whole thing: http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm

[Armchair]

Heh...you believe they actually pay attention to the Russian Constitution in Russia.

[Martinned]

No, I believe that a constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on if no one is willing or able to enforce it.

[minus the clever name]

Martin, that is WHY it is "marvelous document" BECAUSE it would not be enforced !!!!
Hence in America our James Madison said

"Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defence is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful members of the government"

Beautiful documents can be like handsome murderers.
Russian Constitution the Luigi Mangione of demonic documents

[Brett Bellmore]

The USSR famously had a great Constitution, too. The problem was it wasn't in any meaningful way being followed. Likewise here, of course.

The challenge isn't writing a constitution that looks good on paper. It's writing one that actually gets implemented as written.

[Riva]

Yes, the great Justice Scalia also marveled at the freedoms provided by the Constitution of the USSR. Freedoms on paper. In practice, not so much.

[Martinned]

Exactly

[Brett Bellmore]

This is why I'm so down on living constitutionalism. In practice it's just another way to claim to have a constitution, while not actually implementing it.

[tylertusta]

Rule by Democrat- and you'll only find out what the rules are when the Democrat Judge tells you!

[Martinned]

No, it's a way of recognising that the words on the page in the abstract mean nothing until they are implemented in actual cases. (And a way to recognise that the drafters of the US constitution wrote a relatively short document where the power to develop the small-c constitution sits with the courts.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That goes too far. The words obviously had meaning when they were written. And that meaning was the basis of the social contract by which sovereignty was conditionally transferred from the people to their government. If you reject the original understanding, you reject the social contract.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, but what they want to do is transform the social contract into a sort of palimpsest; The parchment remains, and we're supposed to be bound by it, but the actual content can be freely replaced without any formal amendments.

[Sarcastr0]

You still replace actual non-originalist methods of interpretation with this thing you made up to be mad at.

[Brett Bellmore]

All non-originalist methods of "interpretation" are just substituting the actual meaning of the Constitution with something the interpreter likes better.

[LawTalkingGuy]

All originalist interpretation is just constructing a historical narrative to justify using a meaning the interpreter likes better. And often the historical narrative either lacks evidentiary support or the record is so contested that it is impossible to determine a fixed or “actual” meaning.

[Sarcastr0]

As LTG notes, you like originalism better because you like the outcomes better.
You can tell because your originalism is not originalism; it's a mish-mash of precedent, your personal Constitutional vibes, some historical stories about the Civil War that are...idiosyncratic, and nothing at all like scholarship.

Meanwhile, of *course* people who think there are better ways to interpret the Constitution than your way prefer their way.

The Constitution does not insist on originalism - you do.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If originalism wasn’t just a mask for values, Shelby County would have come out differently.

[Brett Bellmore]

Originalism as practiced at the Supreme court is often just a mask for outcomes. Heck, Stevens pretended to be engaged in originalist reasoning in his dissent in Heller, and he was deliberately standing original meaning on its head. But he wanted the public to think he was being honest about what the 2nd amendment meant, and that forced him to engage in pretend originalism.

What President is going to deliberately nominate, or Senate confirm, a justice who'd consistently vote to strike down all the vast expansion in federal power over the last century? But that's what any consistent originalist would be obligated to do.

So you only see half hearted originalists at best on the Court. That doesn't mean it's not possible to be a much more consistent originalist than you'd find on the Court, just that being known to be such would keep you off the Court.

Nominally their job is to uphold the Constitution. As a more realistic matter, their job is actually to rationalize the legality of an expansive federal government, and just uphold the Constitution insofar as it doesn't get in the way of that.

[bernard11]

Never forget. Only Brett really understands the Constitution, absolutely can't grasp the difference between a text and its application, who can't imagine that the social values of the 18th and 19th centuries are not baked into the Constitution - "nobody at the time would have thought" - who reads "Indians not taxed," to include non-Indians who are taxed, etc.

[Martinned]

The people agreed to entrust the power to decide cases and controversies to judges, who would be appointed using a given procedure, and who would use certain canons of interpretation similar to those used by the judiciary before. That is, in a nutshell, the social contract. (Or at least the legal part of it.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Evidence that was the basis of the social contract?

None.

[minus the clever name]

Well,no, none of the Founders thought that way.

In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

[Brett Bellmore]

How is that disagreeing with what I said? I'm just saying that it's one thing to write a good constitution, and quite another to get it followed.

As I see it there are basically two elements to that, (And public morality IS obviously a factor here.) the initial conditions, and the tracking.

You originate a constitution, but if there's no will to follow it to begin with, it starts out and remains an irrelevancy. This was the case for the USSR, whose constitution was purely for public consumption. It was touch and go for the US Constitution at first, too, as you could see from things like the Alien and Sedition acts.

The second issue, once you've got that initial compliance, is feedback mechanisms that keep that compliance going. This was the peculiar genius of the founders, who did a pretty good job of crafting a constitution that would actually stay in effect, because of vertical and horizontal separation of powers, and "opposing ambition with ambition"; It was set up so that the interests of the people running it would tend to drive compliance.

They didn't do a perfect job of that, and the people running the federal government eventually figured out that they could largely escape those constraints by selecting judges who would not have any interest in upholding them. But this only happened after the direct election of Senators deprived the states of their Senatorial leverage over the workings of the federal government, particularly confirmation of the judiciary.

I believe the 17th amendment fatally broke the founders' constitutional scheme, by taking from states the last theoretical leverage they had over the federal government. So it's not really an accident that the vast expansion of federal power of the mid 20th century came after the 17th amendment.

Today, of course, we tend not to understand such considerations, having been indoctrinated to view democracy as a positive good, rather than just a sometimes least bad way of picking public officials.

[ducksalad]

Two rollback amendments that could restore some balance (although it might be too late):

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
2. Restore and empower the electoral college. State legislatures will pick presidential electors, and may not hold popular elections for president or presidential elector (or anything that looks like such an election).

[Brett Bellmore]

And there's next to no public support for either reform, because Americans are now indoctrinated to support the way things are now, and very rarely actually understand how the Constitution was expected to function.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Saying that Americans are indoctrinated to believe they should have the franchise is certainly a way to phrase it. I suppose the English have been “indoctrinated” to expect that the Crown respects the will of Parliament even thought that’s not how anyone expected it to function when the institution emerged.

The constitution was also expected to protect the institution of slavery. But I don’t think you’d say Americans are indoctrinated because they don’t want to go back to that. Well maybe YOU would, but normal people wouldn’t.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the proper way to phrase it when "civics" is a required class.

Look at the history of public schooling in America: The "Prussian" system was adopted specifically for the purpose of indoctrination. Even left-wingers can recognize that, despite the fact that they've largely taken over the machinery of indoctrination at this point.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You could use the word education. But you chose the pejorative indoctrination specifically because you want to denigrate the widespread belief among Americans that they should have the franchise. You are disdainful of that belief and assume that had it not been for perfidious indoctrination everyone would agree they shouldn’t vote for the Senate or the President. Which is a fairly silly given that people who were taught how the constitution was “expected” to function in the 19th century thought it sucked and got large support for changing it.

[minus the clever name]

No, my students do not think that way. See, you sever the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution and so lose all its basis

All men are created equal
endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights
====> Government exists to protect those rights

LINCOLN “I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence.”

“Let us revere the Declaration of Independence” (Speech at Bloomington, May 29, 1856)
“Let us readopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it the practices and policy which harmonize with it (Speech at Peoria, October 16, 1854).”

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not talking about the substantive content of the Constitution, I'm talking about the structural and functional elements necessary to get the Constitution to actually be followed. Vertical and horizontal division of powers, ambition being made to counter ambition, that sort of thing.

If you only pay attention to the substantive DoE type content, but not the structural and functional elements necessary to motivate actual office holders to follow the document, you get a situation like the USSR or Russia: A really nice constitution on paper, that does nobody any good because the government just ignores it.

[bernard11]

I believe the 17th amendment fatally broke the founders' constitutional scheme, by taking from states the last theoretical leverage they had over the federal government.

You believe a lot of nonsense.

Senators chosen by state legislators would be hacks to the same degree Senators are hacks today. The opnly difference is that every now and then we get one who is not in hock to the legislature.

Why do you imagine they would fight fiercely for state sovereignty, and why do you imagine that would be a good thing?

[Bunny495]

Obligatory joke anytime Russia is mentioned.

"They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work"

[Martinned]

David Allen Green, who I've mentioned on this blog before, had a useful reminder yesterday of the inherently fluid nature of the law of equity:

https://davidallengreen.com/2025/07/the-us-supreme-court-judgment-on-injunctions-what-justice-barrett-said/

Here we can quickly go from the United States of the 2020s to the English courts of the 1960s, and in particular to the hallowed and seminal 1963 case of Ridge v Baldwin.

In that judgment, which is one of the founding cases of modern English administrative law (that is the special area of law dealing with public administration), Lord Reid said:

“We do not have a developed system of administrative law – perhaps because until fairly recently we did not need it.”

In other words: there had been changes in the role and configuration of the state – and the courts now had to keep up, and so develop both the substantive law and the remedies available to the court.
(...)
And the reason context here is especially important is because we are dealing with what lawyers call “equity”. Equity is, in general terms, about the courts ensuring things are done which should be done.

There are a number of equitable remedies, but the most famous of which is the injunction: an order of a court to stop someone doing something until further order of the court. Injunctions can be permanent, but they also can be on an interim basis – to “hold the ring” so to speak.

And courts develop equitable remedies over time. In England for example, the courts have developed all sorts of orders so as to ensure things are done which should be done – for example here, here, and recently by the United Kingdom Supreme Court with “contra mundum” injunctions against persons unknown.

As the United Kingdom Supreme Court set out in that last decision:

“the court will be guided by principles of justice and equity and, in particular:

(a) that equity provides a remedy where the others available under the law are inadequate to vindicate or protect the rights in issue;

(b) That equity looks to the substance rather than to the form;

(c) That equity takes an essentially flexible approach to the formulation of a remedy; and

(d) That equity has not been constrained by hard rules or procedure in fashioning a remedy to suit new circumstances.

These principles may be discerned in action in the remarkable development of the injunction as a remedy during the last 50 years.”

https://davidallengreen.com/2025/07/the-us-supreme-court-judgment-on-injunctions-what-justice-barrett-said/

[Riva]

About as useful as advice from a Martian from another planet.

[Krayt]

“We do not have a developed system of administrative law – perhaps because until fairly recently we did not need it.”

They had corruption and kleptocracy insinuating itself into everything since ancient times. Some even goofily suggest that was the purpose government was created for!

The modern regulatory state was an evolution of that in a country with a free press and the vote. Politicians needed survivable rationalizations to get in the way of things, until their family wealth starts skyrocketting at multiples of their humble servant-of-The-People salaries.

Charging a 10% waggle-fingered "fee" to approve a new building is so old school!

[Brett Bellmore]

" Some even goofily suggest that was the purpose government was created for!"

Government as we know it actually evolved from the corruption and kleptocracy; Local protection rackets, essentially, evolved into what we know as "government" today.

[Sarcastr0]

We can never really know but bear we can tell early cities were not what you describe.

All you are left with is vibesing about how people are.

[Brett Bellmore]

Early cities showed up well after government originated, Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

So...we can never really know and all you are left with is vibesing about how people are.

It's common among authoritarians to have a dark view of human nature, thus explaining why it needs so much top-down correction.

[Brett Bellmore]

The origin of government has been recapitulated multiple times, Sarcastr0, so it's not the mystery you'd make it out to be. Governments are highly evolved protection rackets, and frequently devolve back to their origins.

[Sarcastr0]

Vibe harder.

[bernard11]

Don't generalize from Trump, who certainly fits your description.

[minus the clever name]

It came from

All men are created equal
all are endowed by their Creator with Unalienable rights
Government exists to protect those rights.

After the Incarnation (and because of it) this is history's greatest advancement

You really lean to heavily on Evolution (which your references show you don't understand)

[Martinned]

This is an insightful essay about "the deplorables gambit", which the author defines as:

1. A far-right group leads or becomes a powerful cheerleader in a campaign about Y, a topic that also attracts mainstream right-wingers.
2. Some centrists and left-wing people are alarmed to see normal right-wingers joining forces with genuine neofascists so voice alarm.
3. Right-wing commentators then deploy the deplorables gambit: “They are saying that everyone who cares about Y is far right! How dare they?”
4. So mainstream right-wingers believe they have been smeared, ignore the warnings and become more aligned with their extremist allies, who they assume must have been unfairly categorised too and, like them, aren’t really far-right.

He (admittedly) offers no solutions, though...

https://mrmichaelshaw.medium.com/the-deplorables-gambit-45a06e71afa3

[Brett Bellmore]

One might ask why the right-wingers lack for non-"far right" cheer leaders for such popular positions, that they need the "far right" cheerleader.

One possibility is that the left is just labeling anybody who leads the cheer for positions it doesn't like "far right", and I think there IS an element of that. The left being at the opposite extreme, they think any disagreement from them from the right is "far" right, failing to take into account the distance between their own viewpoint and the political center.

But another factor is when the mainstream right-wing establishment stops being representative of its own base, so the base has to reach outside that establishment to find its cheer leaders. And that's the bigger factor here in the US.

Then you start getting terms like "controlled opposition" and "uniparty" bandied about, and there's some truth to them. But the larger truth is that a number of countries, and the US is among them, have developed self-perpetuating and largely closed political classes, which are fairly effective at limiting political office to their own members.

Such political classes evolve views that are distinct from the general population, and in so doing, leave large elements of general population mainstream views unrepresented. And then the voters go looking for somebody, inevitably outside that political class, who WILL represent them. Genuinely represent them, not just mouth the words and do the opposite in office.

That's certainly been the case for the Republican party at the national level, and is why we got Trump: Opposition to illegal immigration, opposition to abortion, support for gun rights; There was a long list of issues where 'establishment' candidates would make the right noises to get elected, and then not act on them.

And then the voters look for somebody outside that establishment.

So, we got Trump, who is far from ideal, but Dobbs didn't happen until he'd picked 3 Justices. The border is being enforced. The DOJ is opposing gun control in court. Seems to have worked.

The Republican establishment were responsible for Trump being needed to accomplish that.

[Martinned]

Sure, there are lots of popular policies you can pursue if you don't care about little details like the Constitution. To the extent that centre-right voters support this, that is extremely troubling. This is how democracy dies.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know another way democracy dies? When voting becomes futile because you're going to get the same policies regardless of which of the candidates wins. Democracy only 'lives' to the extent voting can actually influence government policy, otherwise it's just a sham. Once the major parties agree on something, democracy stops working on that topic.

I didn't name any policy that required violating the Constitution. On the contrary, upholding the 2nd amendment is a case of ceasing to violate the Constitution.

[Martinned]

Brettlaw FTW!

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, it's pretty silly labeling actual formally ratified constitutional text "Brettlaw", just because I happen to like it. I very seldom take constitutional positions that have no support among constitutional scholars, and when that particular epithet gets directed at interpretations that actually win in the Supreme court it's particularly silly.

Elected officials following popular policies they were elected to pursue isn't how democracy dies, it's how democracy lives. If they follow the policies in defiance of constitutional limitations it may be how constitutional government dies, but that's distinct from democracy. Democracy and constitutional government are practically orthogonal.

I'm simply pointing out that when the major parties agree about something, and in so doing disagree with the voters, you don't have a functioning democracy anymore. There's no material difference between a 'democracy' where there's only ever one candidate for any given office, and a 'democracy' where there are two, but they always agree.

There were wide swaths of public policy where US democracy was broken by the Republican and Democratic parties being agreed, and agreed in conflict with public opinion. This is what led to Trump. If it had continued it would have led to worse than Trump, so be glad the pressure cooker just sprang a leak, rather than outright exploding.

[Martinned]

No, what's silly is pretending that your interpretation of the Constitution is the same thing as "The Constitution". But many, many people on this blog have tried to explain that to you before, without the slightest bit of success. So for now I'll stick with "Brettlaw" as a shorthand.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm capable of parsing English sentences, and the Constitution is written in English. I know the connection between these two facts annoys some people, who think you should never point out when court decisions contradict constitutional text.

Anyway, in the immediate instance, it's "Brettlaw" to notice that the current administration is actually defending the Constitution in gun cases, rather than defending laws that violate it? Tell that to Thomas, he might prefer the term "Thomaslaw".

[Sarcastr0]

Anyway, in the immediate instance, it's "Brettlaw" to notice that the current administration is actually defending the Constitution in gun cases, rather than defending laws that violate it?

Yes. because the Constitution here isn't the Constitution, it's the BrettLaw Constitution. Your inability to understand that other people can have different takes continues to astound and amuse.

[Brett Bellmore]

What astounds is your mocking a take that has a Supreme court ruling agreeing with it. Like I said, maybe you should call it ThomasLaw, since he's the one who wrote Bruen.

[Sarcastr0]

You can't stop complaining how the Supreme Court isn't following your BrettLaw take on Bruen.

The Supreme Court is a legit authority when they agree with you and illegitimate when they don't.

That's exactly why BrettLaw is a thing!

[Brett Bellmore]

And you can't stop ignoring the fact that the AUTHOR of Bruen thinks they're violating it now. Look what a mess Rahimi was. About the only thing the majority actually agreed about was Rahimi losing! Only Thomas was actually applying the Bruen test. And who would understand it better than its author?

Which means nothing to you, because as a living constitutionalist, you don't think authors really have anything to do with the meaning of texts, do you? They just "mean" whatever is convenient to attribute to them, and screw what the author tried to make them mean.

[Sarcastr0]

The AUTHOR doesn't matter. The opinion that carried the day does.

You're making up your own standard for what counts as the *real* Supreme Court Constitutional Truth so it aligns with what you want.

When the Court opinion agrees with you, you pound on the opinion.
When a dissent agrees with you, you pound on the dissent.
When the Court doesn't agree with you, you'll pound on your personal insights into the text and history.

IOW, BrettLaw.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not the opinion that carried the day, the meaning of the opinion that carried the day. And if I want to know what a written text means, and the author is handy, I ask him, because he's the best informed on that topic.

You're forever trying to divorce text from it's meaning. Like I said, reducing it to a palimpsest you can fill with whatever meaning YOU find congenial.

[bernard11]

Which means nothing to you, because as a living constitutionalist, you don't think authors really have anything to do with the meaning of texts, do you? They just "mean" whatever is convenient to attribute to them, and screw what the author tried to make them mean.

Which is your excuse for your brand of Constitutionalism. "Hey, I know it says this, but the authors intended (unanimously, no doubt) that, so it really means that. Never mind how I know that."

Talk about twisting yourself into knot to get the conclusion you want.

[Sarcastr0]

Not the opinion that carried the day, the meaning of the opinion that carried the day
You've never BrettLaw'd harder.

[bernard11]

There were wide swaths of public policy where US democracy was broken by the Republican and Democratic parties being agreed, and agreed in conflict with public opinion.

Oh bullshit.

Your opinions are yours, not the public's. You live in a world where everyone agrees with your views, and imagine that that means the public in general does also. They don't.

Go take a poll and ask people if they think Senators should be elected by the voters or named by the state legislature.

[Bunny495]

"When voting becomes futile because you're going to get the same policies regardless of which of the candidates wins. Democracy only 'lives' to the extent voting can actually influence government policy, otherwise it's just a sham. Once the major parties agree on something, democracy stops working on that topic."

Both major parties have agreed that unsustainable spending will continue unabated; something that will lead to the destruction of America.

[wvattorney13]

Agreed. What helped Trump is that after Bush proved to be a lukewarm conservative the Republicans were barely pretending anymore by nominating McCain and Romney.

That left a huge segment of the population effectively unrepresented and Trump tapped directly into that.

[Frank Drackman]

“45/47/(48?) was the first Repubiclown I was happy to vote for since Ronaldus Maximus in 1984

[Martinned]

A story where McCain (running against Obama) was too far to the left to be elected is certainly one way to tell the story.

Probably the better way to put it is that a large part of the American public has discovered that it can insist that politicians sell them bullshit sandwiches, and has decided that they prefer bullshit over reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

But then along comes Trump, and, surprise! Roe actually does get overturned, illegal immigration actually does get driven to effectively zero. The American public finds that it actually can get what it wants, if it elects somebody who isn't determined to run a bait and switch on them.

It turns out that Republicans were capable all along of delivering on a lot of their campaign promises, and simply didn't intend to deliver.

That's not something the Republican base is going to forget any time soon. Even after Trump is gone, they'll remember that. They've suspected for years that the GOP was running a bait and switch, now they know it was.

Does this translate automatically into future Republican Presidents delivering on their campaign promises? Nope. It's really hard to tell in advance who's lying. But it does strip away the excuses.

[minus the clever name]

Hillary, the volcanic tent dress of hate, scared Americans into Trump's arms by being a perfect anti-American hater herself. If elected President I will still hate the millions of Trump citizens.

“I am all that stands between you and the apocalypse,” Clinton told the cheering crowd. She launched into all the things she found “deplorable” about Trump: He threatened marriage equality, cozied up to white supremacists, made racist and sexist remarks — all things she found “so personally offensive.”

If , Martin , you still haven't learned, then look at Biden a stupid man that never learns

“The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American,” Biden said in a campaign call organized by the Hispanic advocacy group Voto Latino. “It’s totally contrary to everything we’ve done, everything we’ve been.”

Finally , Martin, one more chance for you to recognize how wrong this tactic is...here is a man now pretty much loathed across the board , TIM WALZ

“Let’s be very clear, the vice president and I have made it absolutely clear that we want everyone as a part of this,” he said. “Donald Trump’s divisive rhetoric is what needs to end.”

THREE OF HISTORY"S GREAT LOSERS PLAYING THE SAINT ROLE.

Trump at least is not a hater of all Americans

[wvattorney13]

"“The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American,” Biden said in a campaign call organized by the Hispanic advocacy group Voto Latino. “It’s totally contrary to everything we’ve done, everything we’ve been.”"

I don't know if that will make the history books but that sure turned out a lot of Trump voters when they let Biden have that mic.

[Krayt]

Certain strategies feel good when you're preaching to the choir, taking the lead pushing the buttons of the other side.

I noted the "Your betters are gonna shove this down your throat and you will comply" button pushing ceased as the election approached, when some strategist realized the fun outrage they teased was just securing guaranteed voters.

Sometimes I wonder if the more outrageous posters on either side aren't troll farm plants, trying to poison the well of "their" side. That they backed off shows this particular case wasn't, as a mole would have kept the outrage up to the bitter end.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No-doubt inadvertently omitted context:

"Biden created an uproar earlier this week with his remarks to Latino activists responding to racist comments at a Trump rally made by the comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who referred to the US island territory of Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage”."

It was a stupid, dare I say it "MAGA-esque", insult Biden turned to in response (made categorically worse by his Administration's attempt to wiggle out of what he had actually said).

[minus the clever name]

As Salena Zito showed with Hillary, that kind of hate will push people to support almost anyone. I am not a Trumpie but I felt it in my waters that she was making people hate her. Oh, they clapped and they chortled but they began to think that "X is something different about me, what if Hillary starts hating people with X"

[Kazinski]

The Senate passed the One Big Beautiful bill, 50-50 with JD Vance breaking the tie. The CBO score's the bill at a 3.3t increase of the deficit, of course 4t of that is extending the 2017 tax cuts which of course are current law, we can all do our own math on the true cost of the bill, and of course all come up with our own different answers.

Its also worth noting the CBO has scored Trumps tariffs as providing 2.8t in deficit reduction over 10 years.

With that context I was struck by how many people were arguing in Sunday's thread than tariffs will bring the economy to its knees. Everyone realizes we have to do something about providing more revenue to reduce the deficit, so using CBO numbers which do you prefer:

1. Dump OBBB, and have a 4 trillion tax hike (CBO scores this at zero), and dump the tariffs, for net 1.2t deficit reduction. (keep in mind a 4t tax increase will almost certainly cause a recession)

2. keep OBBB, and .7t in spending cuts, and keep the tariffs, for -.5 deficit reduction. (some say the tariffs will cause a recession, but no evidence for that so far).

3 keep OBBB, -3.3t and get rid of the tariffs, net -3.3t on the deficit, but likely no recession, and mose robust growth scenario.

[Martinned]

Its also worth noting the CBO has scored Trumps tariffs as providing 2.8t in deficit reduction over 10 years.

Funny the kinds of results you can get if you tell the CBO to assume that Santa Clause is real.

[Kazinski]

Well who was it that told the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that Santa Claus and Zwarte Piet are real?

They aren't an executive office so it wasn't Trump.

Just as a reality check June tariff revenue was 26.7 billion, over 10 years that is 3.2t, so it does realistically pencil out.

[Martinned]

Sure, because everybody knows that the Trump administration has no influence whatsoever over Congress.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, Trump has a great deal of influence over the median member of the Republican caucus, but influence over 1/4-1/3 of Congress doesn't amount to much influence over Congress as a whole.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is that true for a Congress acting under the Hastert rule?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, obviously. The Hastert rule blocks the passage of popular legislation if the leadership oppose it. To the (limited) extent that the leadership are aligned with Trump, that's modestly useful to him, but it obviously hasn't helped him any with getting legislation assisting his agenda passed.

Basically Congress just sits there, a useless lump. They don't oppose or assist him.

[minus the clever name]

Is this you, Hillary ?

That's Claus not Clause ,which is a grammatical term

[Armchair]

Technically, it's not the "One Big Beautiful bill." Senator Schumer passed a stunning legislative move at the last second, stripping that name from the bill. He pointed out to the Senate Parliamentarian, than the naming provision for the bill didn't follow reconciliation procedures. So those lines were removed.

Truly God's work by Senator Schumer.

[Brett Bellmore]

Truly. I am utterly sick and tired of these stupid names for bills. Usually the more descriptive the name is, the less accurate the description...

Though "big" was fair enough.

[Malika the Maiz]

My complaint is this approach to put 100 goals into one humongous bill. Thought this was bad when Biden did it with his Inflation Reduction Act and bad here too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe return to regular order and pass separate appropriation bills?

[Bob from Ohio]

"My complaint is this approach to put 100 goals into one humongous bill."

Reconciliation was created to get around the filibuster, so they cram what they can in.

We should eliminate the filibuster.

[A Japanese Student]

See also Public Law 117-169, whose name was also stripped under Byrd Rule.

[tylertusta]

Truly God's work by Senator Schumer.

Considering that his party pass a pork spending bill called the "Inflation Reduction Act," Sen. Schumer is truly the greatest mind in a generation.

[A Japanese Student]

I'd prefer "dump OBBB, increase income tax (and to the extent allowed under the Constitution, direct taxes like taxing land and assets), dump tariffs and excise taxes, and limit spending to fully funding existing programs (i.e. no Medicaid/SNAP cut, but no new federal programs or defense shipbuilding).

There are some other, more extreme suggestions I'd make that would have trillion-dollar effects on the budget. Yes, I'm aware most of them are ridiculously stupid.

- repealing Social Security for the elderly and directing it to disability insurance (with relaxed requirements) - elderly people who cannot perform satisfactory jobs can still claim DI.
- regulating costs of medical practices and drugs (other countries do this)
- or, Medicare for All
- constitutional amendment to ban corporate subsidies; government contracts and nonprofit tax exemptions would be permitted, not sure about tax credits
- two-year budgeting - each appropriation bill would have one part amending appropriations for the upcoming FY enacted the previous year, and and another part specifying appropriations for the next FY
- debt ceiling where breached amount is recovered by automatic tax increase instead of defaulting

[Frank Drackman]

I prefer the "Nuclear Option"

[jb]

This is a fun game where you basically get to pretend your policy preferences are free. Democrats should start doing this with social programs: just put them into effect for one year and then the next year when you vote to make them permanent them claim that the net cost of that action is zero. Heck, why not do it for one month so the initial cost looks really low?

A few observations:

1) Seems suspicious to assume that a $4T income tax hike would almost certainly lead to a recession while a $2.8T tariff tax hike that is much more regressive wouldn't.
2) More importantly, there's a clear counterexample to the proposition that increasing marginal tax rates to the Obama levels would hurt the economy: the Obama tax increases themselves, which did not hurt the economy.
3) I actually do think it would be interesting to think about a strategic tariff policy that might focus on, e.g., nationally strategic industries and/or aligning trade towards like-minded partners. Of course, Trump's policies aren't strategic at all* so probably not the approach we want to use.

So I vote for #4: Scrap OBBB, rethink tariffs but don't necessarily elimiate all of them, and try to get the deficit to a much more manageable level.

* Other than the ongoing focus on China, but given that he's also imposed tariffs on every other country in the world that doesn't make the entirety of the policy thoughtful in any way.

[Kazinski]

"1) Seems suspicious to assume that a $4T income tax hike would almost certainly lead to a recession while a $2.8T tariff tax hike that is much more regressive wouldn't."

Except, that a lot of analysts, including Jamie Dimon publicly, and probably half the fed, privately, were predicting a recession from the tariffs. Three months of data is not supporting that, and most have backed off the prediction.

I don't think predicting a recession from a 4t income and business tax hike is going out on a long limb, but it admittedly is just a prediction with no data one way or another other than prior experience.

Tarrifs do differ from income taxes in that tariffs are a consumption tax and are to some degree optional, like all consumption taxes.

[jb]

"but it admittedly is just a prediction with no data one way or another other than prior experience"

Once again, that's not true. I linked to a study above that looked at what happened when Obama raised the rates to the exact same level as would be the case if the OBBB did not pass.

[Kazinski]

Which is a ridiculous comparison. Because Obama raised the highest bracket and left the lower brackets unchanged.

Trump's tax cut was not only a 3-4% cut in 3 of 4 of the lowest brackets, he also raised the standard deduction significantly dropping many in the lowest bracket off the rolls, and ratcheting down a lot of the rest.

How tone deaf do you need to be comparing a 3.6% hike in the highest bracket with an a 3-4% hike in the lowest brackets?

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/

[Krayt]

The takeaway is that any inflow benefit from tariffs will not reduce deficit, much less pay down debt, but just spent, deliberately, as new magical revenue.

They literally deliberately borrow based on GDP. There is no effort to pretend interest in a balanced budget.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that sounds about right: We don't run deficits due to a lack of revenue, we run them due to a lack of spending restraint. Any new revenue just causes deficits to occur at a higher overall level of spending.

[bernard11]

Any new revenue just causes deficits to occur at a higher overall level of spending.

The mantra of GOP tax cutters blind to deficits, who consider themselves, laughably, deficit hawks.

You sound like Gingrich criticizing Clinton, and your predictions are just as bad.

[Kazinski]

No. They are not tying borrowing to a percentage of GDP, that is most of the problem, here is the last 10 years of the deficit % of GDP, covid years bolded,so discount those years if you like.

2015-01-01 -2.41574
2016-01-01 -3.10903
2017-01-01 -3.39306
2018-01-01 -3.77157
2019-01-01 -4.56634
2020-01-01 -14.66910
2021-01-01 -11.71965
2022-01-01 -5.29060
2023-01-01 -6.11543
2024-01-01 -6.28002

We need to bring back the deficit to 2% of GDP max.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The disingenuousness is strong in this one...

Trump's 2017 tax cuts were only "current law" until the date they would have automatically expired.

But, you knew that.

[Kazinski]

The disingenuousness seems to be even stronger in you, the 2017 tax cuts do not expire until the end of this year, so they are most assuredly, practically and legally "current" law.

Not until 2026 will they expire.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Doubling down on the lie. How predictable!

[hobie]

Putting aside that these tariffs initiated not by the legislative are illegal under the constitution; who in their right mind would keep these economy-killing tariffs in place for 10 years?

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, we do not know what the final bill is. The bill must pass out of the House. The devil is in the details, particularly with the new tax deductions that 'stack' on to the standard deduction.

One comment...For senior couples, the 'stackable' deductions really add up. The first ~42K of their income will presumably be tax free (std ded + sr ded + new 12K ssa ded). I foresee a massive uptick in the number of Roth conversions. Anyone (like a pre-retiree) having a low income year (by design) will have significantly more tax free space to use for conversions.

[Brett Bellmore]

That will certainly help me. When I retire, and it's just my wife's income and my SS, it's going to be tight.

[Martinned]

I guess a week ago they would have written "illegal" instead of "at odds with", but now I suppose every member of Congress will have to sue individually every time they want to visit an "immigration detention facility" (aka concentration camp), so talking about things in terms of them being "illegal" doesn't make sense anymore.

The Department of Homeland Security has formally instituted a new requirement that members of Congress and their staff provide a week of notice before they visit immigration detention facilities, a policy that is at odds with a federal law that allows lawmakers to make unannounced oversight trips.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/30/us/trump-news

[Commenter_XY]

eurotrash, an immigration detention facility is not a concentration camp. No disgusting appellation you write changes that.

I will grant that IF an Alligator Alcatraz detainee gets eaten by Nicodemus the Alligator, that might not be so good. However...

IF you are an illegal alien in this country, you are subject to immediate detention and subsequent deportation (could be Sudan or Libya).

[Martinned]

I'm glad to see that, for the time being, we still agree that concentration camps are bad. Let's see whether we will still be able to achieve that level of consensus next week or next year.

[Brett Bellmore]

The US actually does have a history of concentration camps. Where law abiding citizens were locked up without due process purely on the basis of their ancestry. Historically, they were instituted and run by Democrats.

[Malika the Maiz]

Actually the governor of California (a Republican at the time) and iirc the main general involved in that effort were Republicans. Also Congress voted nearly overwhelmingly to support internment, too, so there’s lots of blame to go around for that mess.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

More agreement! This is wonderful to see. So progressive...

[Commenter_XY]

The Confederacy ran a couple of concentration camps during the Civil War. The Boer's learned from our experience.

[shawn_dude]

US citizens without criminal records are being tackled on the street while walking to work by masked agents and shoved into unmarked vans for transport to detention centers/prisons/concentration camps (use your preferred label) simply because of their apparent*, Latin American ancestry.

*"apparent" because there's no warrant and no attempt to ID the person so there's no way for the unidentifiable agents to be sure of their victim's status.

[minus the clever name]

martin, you have no idea what a concentration camp is, child

[CountmontyC]

He's from a country that turned it's Jews over to the Nazis who sent them to concentration camps. Personally I would not be surprised if his ancestors particpated in that so I am fairly certain he knows what real concentration camps are.

[minus the clever name]

NO, you hope he knows because you like what he says. BIG DIFFERENCE.
anyway , you certainly don't know if you have to depend on him 🙂

[CountmontyC]

Considering Martinned past comments about Israel would it surprise you if it was one of his ancestors who snitchef out the Franke family?

[Malika the Maiz]

I don’t know who this Franke family is but getting snitchef out sounds tough.

[Frank Drackman]

Guess they didn't show "The Diary of a Young Girl" on BET

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sieg Heil!

[CountmontyC]

Another leftist showing that he is a Nazi. What a surprise.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You self-identify and don't even notice...

[CountmontyC]

You are the one doing the Sieg Heil.
Can you show me a pro Nazi comment I made in this thread?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Obviously, my "Sieg Heil!" was given ironically.

Why else do you think a "Nazi" would salute you? Is it normal for "Nazis" to salute supposedly upstanding, patriotic anti-Nazis, like yourself?

In case you still require an explanation, I saluted you in the "customary fashion" because your comments made it clear that you fit right into the New American Reich. You're not just a "Good American", but a true believer. You must be proud!

[Martinned]

For the record, I wasn't the only one who was reminded of concentration camps: https://newrepublic.com/article/197508/alligator-alcatraz-trump-concentration-camp

“‘Alligator Alcatraz’ is a concentration camp,” Andrea Pitzer, author of One Long Night, a history of concentration camps, said on Tuesday.

[ThePublius]

Oh, great, a source that hates Trump, hates Republicans, hates conservatives.

It's not a concentration camp. People will be put there not because of their political views, race, ethnicity, etc., but only because they entered and remained in the U.S. illegally.

When you are recovering from such a large scale influx of illegal aliens you need large scale responses to correct it.

[Sarcastr0]

They're stripping visas and residencies based on wrongthink. So you're flat wrong about political views.

I also don't think the definition of concentration camp requires the demographic being put into camps be anything in particular.

And we are not recovering from jack shit. Do you read the news? All this is doing is creating misery; it's not really goosing our economy.

[Commenter_XY]

You mean, wrongact + wrongthink.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.[1]" wikippedia

The florida facility is a place to detain people pending resolution of their immigration status. You and your Dutch friend use the term to call Trump a Nazi.

Everyone in the Florida facility can sign a form and be on a plane tomorrow. I do not believe Nazi prisoners could have done so, do you?

[Sarcastr0]

Death camps are a different thing from concentration camps.

Both are bad, but pretty different levels of bad.

American has had concentration camps before.
It sucks we're regressing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Death camps are a different thing from concentration camps."

Well, calling the Florida thing a death camp is too much even for you, so you use concentration camp to make the Nazi comparison because most people don't make the fine distinction.

Buchenwald and Dachau were not "death camps" but lots of death there!

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for explaining my motivations to me. You do seem very motivated!

[Bob from Ohio]

Not my fault you are transparent.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/1939831588902109629?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

Kind of notable that this is what advisors to the President think about the matter.

[shawn_dude]

Over 90% of detainees have no criminal record and ICE is detaining people in the country legally as well as some US citizens. Not sure where you get this "only because" part. If ICE grabbing people attending their legal immigration hearings, that doesn't support your "only illegal" disclaimer.

No matter how many news reports and videos are published showing ICE violating people's civil rights, MAGAts are just holding onto their "hear no evil, see no evil" mantra. The plausible part of "plausible deniability" was killed and buried months ago. All you got left is denial.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no criminal record "

So? That is not a requirement for immigration detention.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or deportation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah so people with the President’s ear are already floating extermination. Not sure why you think that 1) removal of illegal aliens will satisfy them 2) the pace required will satisfy them.

https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/1939831588902109629?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

[SRG2]

an immigration detention facility is not a concentration camp.

I am surprised that you do not express your regret about that.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why do they let Euros serfs shit up this forum?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's better than your average forum, that won't let people disagree with the publication hosting it. Give Reason and Volokh a lot of grief, I often do, but they're pretty good about allowing dissent, and that had been getting increasingly rare online.

[ThePublius]

I just wish Martinned would stop spamming it.

[Malika the Maiz]

Interesting. What makes for spamming? Seems lots of commenters here that you tend to agree with have lots of posts on this thread like Martinned does. Are they spamming too?

[ThePublius]

Count them up.

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, so what’s the line where it becomes spam?

We know, it’s whether you agree with them or not. Poor snowflake!

[Malika the Maiz]

Just did a find on page, Brett=33, martinned=48.

So the spam line is in that 15 area?

[minus the clever name]

Do you really not know what the word means !!!!!!!!

To flood (a network, esp. the internet, a newsgroup, or individuals) with a large number of unsolicited postings, or multiple copies of the same posting

[apedad]

Unsolicited postings?

Prof. Volokh created this Open Thread specifically for readers to provide comments.

"Editor's Note: We invite comments . . . . "

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If it offends you so much, just grey box him? Problem solved.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not spam; they're each specific issues.

You're being a grumpus.

[BrotherMovesOn]

He is an academic. I realize you did not go far in school but offering information is something academics do. It's kind of their thing.
Some people here appreciate more information, not less, although I completely recognize your inability to appreciate the informational content due to your inability to distinguish between a poster's personality and the separate objective information put in front of you.

[Martinned]

I can't stop you turning your country into an authoritarian hellscape. But at least for now, I'm occasionally going to come here to remind you that that's what you're doing. I won't let you lavish in self-delusion.

(Although commenting on US constitutional law won't be as much fun now that the US constitution is worth as much as the Russian one. That makes the entire debate purely a matter of Kremlinology instead of law, and Kremlinology isn't nearly as much fun.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Wake me when things get so hellscapish here that we have to put a wall on the border to keep people in, rather than out.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I predict they will start with people with money.

[shawn_dude]

My worry is that they'll start by prohibiting government pensions and social security going to overseas retirees or, perhaps, eliminating the tax write-off for foreign taxes paid by expats.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Remind me why I'm anon, again...

[Martinned]

Saudi is also killing people to stop them from coming in. But I think we can all agree that it is hardly a paragon of liberty.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-66545787

[ducksalad]

Actually ICE has been gradually increasing exit inspections for people leaving the US.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/us-bc-border-checkpoint-1.7528402

https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/48010/20230624/u-s-customs-has-been-checking-vehicles-before-they-leave-the-country-here-s-why

If it helps you to believe it's real, the second link was during the Biden admin.

However, I'm not aware of any non-fugitives being denied permission to leave. Yet.

[hobie]

Oh dear [starts shaking Brett].

[ThePublius]

"I can't stop you turning your country into an authoritarian hellscape."

Want to see a real authoritarian hellscape? Look at the U.K.

[Malika the Maiz]

You think the UK is a hellscape? Hyperbolic much?

[ThePublius]

They put people, including grandmas, in to prison for thought crimes. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Police door knocks for social media posts.
Jail for social media posts!
No gun rights to speak of.
Now there's knife control.
Jail for silently praying in proximity of an abortion clinic, even if you're in your own home!

Shall I go on?

[Malika the Maiz]

You’re talking like half a dozen cases in a country of millions. We can tie that almost every Short Circuit here!

[Brett Bellmore]

He's talking about a half dozen examples of things that are pretty widespread.

Is it only a few people who don't have gun rights? Only a few people subject to the new controls on kitchen knives?

[ThePublius]

Yes, it's 68.35 million who are deprived of gun rights, deprived of the right to defend themselves by virtually any means, subject to knife restrictions:

"In the UK, it is illegal to carry a knife in public without a good reason. Generally, a "good reason" includes carrying a knife for work, for religious reasons (like the Kirpan), or as part of a national costume. A folding pocket knife with a blade no longer than 3 inches (7.62 cm) can be carried without a specific reason, but even with this, there are places where it is not allowed, like football stadiums, bars, clubs, and city centers.
Key Points:
Blade Length:
.
Non-locking folding knives with a blade length of 3 inches or less are generally considered "UK Friendly" and can be carried without a specific reason.
Locking Knives:
.
Locking knives are generally not allowed to be carried in public without a valid reason, regardless of blade length, according to Emberleaf Knives.
Specific Prohibited Knives:
.
Banned knife types include flick knives, butterfly knives, disguised knives, gravity knives, sword-sticks, and certain types of samurai swords. Zombie-style knives were recently banned and anyone caught with one could face jail time.
"Good Reason":
.
Carrying a knife in public for a legitimate purpose (like work or a specific hobby) is usually allowed, but the onus is on the individual to prove the reason is valid if questioned by police.
Selling Knives:
.
It's illegal to sell knives to anyone under 18.
Important Considerations:
Varying Interpretations:
What constitutes a "good reason" can be subjective and may be determined by the courts.
Knife-Free Zones:
Be aware of specific knife-free zones where no knives are permitted, such as at sporting events or in certain public areas.
Responsible Use:
Even if carrying a knife legally, it's crucial to use it responsibly and avoid causing alarm or concern to others.
Online Sales:
Online retailers and platforms have a responsibility to prevent the sale of illegal knives to minors.
Consult Local Authorities:
If in doubt about the legality of carrying a knife, it's best to consult with your local police or seek legal advice. "

[Malika the Maiz]

You think any coubtry with stricter weapons control laws than us is a hellscape?

[Brett Bellmore]

If we're going to be practicing extreme hyperbole, why not? Any country where they're proposing to ban having points on kitchen knives is pretty far gone.

If, instead, we're going to be sensible, no country with net in-migration should be described as a "hellscape".

So, since you started the hyperbole, I suggest you stop it.

[Malika the Maiz]

How did I start the hyperbole?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sorry, intended that for Martinned.

[Sarcastr0]

things that are pretty widespread
How can you write this and no thave a red flag go up that you're going on vibes again?

[ThePublius]

You lie!

More like a dozen thousand per year!

"According to figures published on Friday, officers make around 12,000 arrests annually under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. These laws criminalize causing distress by sending messages that are “grossly offensive,” or by sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” via electronic communications networks, RT reported.

In 2023 alone, officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests – around 33 per day. The Times said this marks a 58% increase from 2019, when 7,734 arrests were recorded."

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2025/04/07/3286723/12-000-brits-arrested-every-year-over-social-media-posts

[Malika the Maiz]

There’s no lie (there’s that hyperbole again), you gave about half a dozen examples of things you think make it a hellscape.

Also, you do realize we have laws in the US against sending messages that are “grossly offensive,” or by sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” via electronic communications networks, right?

[ThePublius]

No, you are lying by mischaracterizing my post. I was listing categories of offenses, not instances.

You really think the U.S. is like the U.K. in this respect? If so, you need to get out more.

[ThePublius]

"There’s no lie (there’s that hyperbole again), you gave about half a dozen examples of things you think make it a hellscape."

What on earth are you talking about? I quoted a source reporting that there were 12,000 arrests annually under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. And you magically reduce this to "half a doze?" And you evaluate nationwide gun control and knife control as if they are individual instances of restrictions, i.e., involving one person? That's first class lying.

[Malika the Maiz]

I listed them as separate examples, as Brett said. That’s not lying, you’re so full of selective hyperbole.

“You really think the U.S. is like the U.K. in this respect?”

In making non-consensual indecent or menacing electronic messages criminal? It’s not far off. There are criminal laws that cover that in the US.

[ThePublius]

Yes, you are far off.

[hobie]

"Police door knocks for social media posts.
Jail for social media posts!"

So you don't like it when a state does that to people, eh?

You know, Publius, this softball is so easy that I'll just leave it at that

[Bob from Ohio]

You think the US is a hellscape. Hyperbolic much?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean it’s no more hyperbolic than what Trump and co say about the vast majority of the places Americans actually live.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I had halibut in Battersea last month and it was bloody marvelous!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You could only make such a comment if you had no relevant experience living in the UK. Yes, it's different than the US. But, you have no accurate idea how much and in which ways that might be because your "experience" is filtered by the media you consume. (And that media obviously has its own agenda.)

I feel sorry for you, not for being ignorant (which is obvious), but because you appear to have no curiosity at all about how the world outside your little bubble actually is. Enjoy your bliss.

[ThePublius]

I feel sorry for you, blithely assuming I have no experience in the U.K., and your arrogant superiority complex.

I have spent a lot of time in the U.K., have many friends and colleagues and relatives there. I have Irish citizenship. And I know what they go through, and the frustration they experience, particularly on the topic of firearms, which is one of my interests.

So, bugger off!

[Sarcastr0]

Now this makes me wonder what kinds of friends you have overseas!

[Martinned]

He certainly makes it sound like he's friends with the guys from Kneecap!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Your words belie your "experience", I'm afraid.

Surprised about the Irish citizenship, though. Do your MAGA friends know you're a traitor?

Most of the world severely restricts private firearm ownership, so if that's your primary interest, few places in the world are going to measure up to that "standard". I own many guns in the US (still, even though I do not live there), and have always enjoyed them, but I never expected to be able to exercise "gun rights" in a country in which there are few such rights, if any. Lack of that particular constitutional right is not a "deprivation" of gun rights. It is just one example of a place where there are no such rights.

To rely on a common constitutional difference as evidence of the UK being a "real authoritarian hellscape" is absurd.

[ThePublius]

There is nothing traitorous about dual citizenship. Melania and Baron Trump both are dual U.S./Slovenia citizens, as a matter of fact.

Gun rights are just one aspect, not the only aspect, as you try to portray my comments.

Do some research. Many, many people bemoan the continued progression towards authoritarianism in the U.K.

Can you imagine in the U.S. the local police knocking on your door, and even taking you into custody for something you post online? Really? It's ridiculous. Yet it happens tens of thousands a year in the U.K. Can you imagine being charged and jailed for having a pointy kitchen knife? For using mace to fend of an attacker? For using spray paint to fend of an attacker?(!) For silently praying?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You called the UK a "real authoritarian hellscape", in response to Martin's sarcastic characterization of the US. Don't try to walk it back now!

I, too, have long "bemoaned" the UK's failings in that regard, at least as far back as the Blair government's breathtaking gutting of the principle of double jeopardy, the May government's shameful decision to strip British citizenship from Shamima Begum, and various free speech criminal prosecutions which have taken place since then. I could go on.

You're trippin' if you think Trump's personal affairs with foreigners are going to save you from the post-Trump Truth Socialist American Inquisition squads... Best renounce that suspect second citizenship now!

[CountmontyC]

I find it interesting that a person from a country that literally handed Jews ( among them Anne Franke) over to Nazis who then sent the Jews to real concentration camps can't tell the difference between real concentration camps and deportation centers.

[Michael P]

Well, he also praised the Russian Constitution as "marvellous". That says a lot about his sympathies and his critical thinking. Unlike the US, lots of countries have constitutions that they make hollow because their judiciaries think that governments -- especially parliamentary style ones -- should have incredibly broad powers to oppress native citizens.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and don't forget that ultimate constitution; The UN Declaration of Human Rights.
(re. another thread; did I use a semi-colon properly?)

[Martinned]

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not a constitution; for several reasons, one of which is that it isn't law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned 8 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User

I'm sorry if sarcasm confuses you.

[minus the clever name]

It is meant to be higher than a Consitution, actually

Jacques Maritain considered the UDHR to be the "preface to a moral Charter of the civilized world". He viewed it as a statement of rights that any just society should recognize.

[Krayt]

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Oh oh!

[minus the clever name]

Well yeah !!!! You are a person before the law. You must have meant 'before ' in a non-chronological use, right. Well that is poor writing.
Article 6 is in all the modern major langauages , check the French or German and you will see I am correct.

[tylertusta]

No. A colon should have been used there.

An instructional video on semicolons:

https://youtu.be/M94ii6MVilw

[Mr. Bumble]

Damn. Miss Yaskell would be so disappointed in me.

[Martinned]

I'm sorry if sarcasm confuses you.

[Michael P]

With all the crazy and stupid shit you post, you probably shouldn't try sarcasm. It comes across as serious.

[Malika the Maiz]

No normal walk back from Mikie P, instead a moonwalk while spitting!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's usually a good practice to use [/sarc]. That really didn't come across as sarcasm, too subtle.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're not as dumb as you imply, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not dumb, but I am often oblivious to nuance. Or maybe a better way to put it is that I can see so may possible nuances I have trouble determining which was intended. Something that's not getting easier as I age.

That gave me real trouble on the SAT back in the 70's, which is why I didn't quite ace the verbal score.

But, anyway, without physical cues (On the internet, nobody can see you making air quotes...) I find it's best to explicitly label sarcasm and parody.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're not as autistic as you imply, Brett.

[Martinned]

It's called learning lessons from history. You should try it.

[CountmontyC]

One lesson to learn is to ignore self riteous assholes from countries that turned Jews over to the Nazis.

[Martinned]

Feel free. Nobody is forcing you to read my comments.

[Malika the Maiz]

Uh, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/voyage-of-the-st-louis

[LawTalkingGuy]

Dang. Same thought.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Great. Don’t need to listen to Americans then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

[CountmontyC]

Difference is that the USA refused to allow the St. Louis to disembark it's passengers but did not turn them over directly to the Nazis. Sordid and immoral but a difference in degree. The Netherlands actually had people turning in Jews directly to the Nazia.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Should a defendant who is factually innocent but morally guilty get his case overturned?

[Armchair]

Yes

[minus the clever name]

This is loose and lazy speech.
You can't be guilty without facts being the support of the guilt.
Now the legal facts used might be wrong but then who are you to state baldly that that person is 'morally guilty' . This doesn't add up. You take the omniscient view but if we had omniscience we wouldn't need the law at all

[Malika the Maiz]

Most normal humans can differentiate between morality and legality, things can be immoral but legal.

[minus the clever name]

Soooooo...nobody doubts that, It is what Lincoln famously said about slavery, they dont want us to say it's legal they want us to say it is a social good.

[hobie]

Sounds like Kyle Rittenhouse

[Krayt]

They claim he sexually abused a first grader. For some reason, they did not charge him with that general crime but rather incest. More salacious, I'd guess. He said my old marriage is still legal, and hence she cannot be legally my daughter, hence not incest.

The "moral guilt" seems easy to understand.

[Krayt]

A more interesting question is could they now charge him with the more general crime, or did they screw up royally and it's now forbidden as a double jeopardy re-do.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm pretty sure "incest" with an adult and statutory rape for the earlier conduct are sufficiently different to not face double jeopardy. The real issue would, I think, be that they couldn't adequately prove the earlier conduct, which happened when she was a minor, which is why they went with the incest charge.

[not guilty]

"They claim he sexually abused a first grader. For some reason, they did not charge him with that general crime but rather incest."

According to the Court of Appeals opinion, the sexual abuse began in North Carolina and continued in Texas. The family settled in Georgia in 2019.

Georgia had no jurisdiction to try the defendant for abuse occurring in other states. Whether North Carolina or Texas can prosecute him now depends on whether such a prosecution would still be timely under the laws of those states.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Now the legal facts used might be wrong but then who are you to state baldly that that person is 'morally guilty' ."

Well, the legal facts are that the defendant was convicted of incest for abusing his step-daughter. He denies that anything happened.

At trial, the state presented sufficient evidence to show that the defendant was married to the girl's mother, and thus he was the child's stepfather.

But he had a previous marriage years ago in Mexico that hadn't been dissolved, rendering his current marriage void ab-initio. His lawyer never asked about something like that, and he didn't know it was important. So he was legit convicted, and it's to late to challenge the marriage now.

The case seems like an interesting look at how we handle known-factually innocent defendants, but it seems misleading to bring it up without pointing out that his "innocence" is largely technical.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they're factually innocent of the crime charged, yes, of course any conviction should be overturned.

From the account he seems to have been factually guilty of other crimes which were not, for some reason, charged.

But it's also questionable whether he was factually innocent of the crime he WAS charged with. He's going with an ineffective counsel argument, which hardly proves that he would have prevailed if the argument HAD been raised.

[SRG2]

Yes. It's obvious that the Court of Appeals really really did not want him to go free.

It's another demonstration of thar most pernicious aspect of US jurisprudence, that process takes precedence over guilt/innocence.

[not guilty]

"Should a defendant who is factually innocent but morally guilty get his case overturned?"

The linked appellate court opinion does not reflect the defendant's innocence in any sense of the word. A verdict of guilt entitles the government on appeal to the strongest view of the evidence, resolving all conflicts in favor of the prosecution and drawing all permissible inferences in favor of the challenged verdict. A reviewing court will not set aside the verdict unless the evidence is insufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found every essential element of the offense to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support conviction, the remedy is dismissal of the prosecution, not reversal and remand for a new trial.

Here the accused elected to testify and he admitted that the victim was his daughter, per page 4 of the appellate opinion. At page 2 the Court of Appeals references testimony that the accused married the victim's mother in 2005 when the victim was four years old. (While the opinion does not identify who gave that testimony, I surmise that it was the victim's mother. The jury were entitled to credit that testimony.)

The accused did not testify as to any prior marriage until the hearing of his motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals wrote at page 5 that there was no evidence of the former marriage presented at trial.

As to the broader philosophical question raised by TwelveInchPianist, a criminal trial is not a search for guilt or innocence; it is a test of the prosecution's evidence. A criminal defense colleague from Knoxville said it best when he declared, "I've never gone to court with a guilty client. I have, however, left some there."

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is the due process conundrum that people like to talk about with respect to Scalia's concurrence in Herrerra, although the death penalty is not at issue here. The conviction was legally correct, but it seems pretty straightforward to prove the existence of the previous marriage, which would mean that the defendant was actually innocent. But the case is complicated by the fact that the actual innocence is largely technical.

[Malika the Maiz]

Was disappointed to see that the Senate version of the “Big, Beautiful Bill” took out the House provision that said you could use your HSA to pay for gym memberships.

[Frank Drackman]

Like your fat ass ever goes to a Gym

[Malika the Maiz]

She’s fat and an ass and offers to service me whenever I might want, but I would never use “my” to refer to the mother of the writer of the Frank Fakeman’s chat performed here.

A gym though might be great for the mental health of someone so weird, sad and pathetic that they would come in this legal blog to perform such a character. Sadly they’d have to have a job to have a HSA, so it’s irrelevant even if this is put back in the bill.

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t have the rent money for yo nappy hai’d you think you can let me slide it on? I’ll have it for you tomorrow, next week, I don’t know

[Mr. Bumble]

One bourbon, one scotch and one beer.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey man, I’m outdoors you know, think I could stay witcha a few days?

[Mr. Bumble]

"He said "Uh, let me go and ask my wife"
He come out of the house,
I could see it in his face
I know that was no
He said "I don't know man, ah she kinda funny, you know"
I said "I know, everybody funny, now you funny too"
So I go back home"

[Malika the Maiz]

The Frank Fakeman character is written as dumb but it not recognizing he initially replied to me is too obvious.

[Frank Drackman]

Whatever you can say about James Earl Ray, when he shot at a King, he didn’t miss

[Bob from Ohio]

This is why Frank is one of the best posters here!

[Armchair]

I'd like to take a moment here, to say "Congrads" to the democrats. You saw the GOP had a crazy guy raise in South Africa doing political things and you said "Hold my beer" and nominated Mr. Mandami for Mayor of New York.

Mr "I'm not a communist," I just want to...

1. Institute state-run grocery stores
2. Get rid of all the Billionaires.
3. Seize the luxury apartment in NYC
4. and "Seize the means of production".

Wow. You've got a winner there. You win the Crazy - Raised in South Africa sweepstakes.

[Malika the Maiz]

I see now that he’s on the outs with King Trump Armchair can say derogatory things about Vizier Elon.

[Martinned]

Yes. Musk will be shipped off to El Salvador any day now. As Kazinski put it: 'When you strike at a king, you better not miss.'

[Malika the Maiz]

Or even better, as he actually wrote “if you strike as a king, you better not miss.” People styling themselves as a King comes so comfortably to mind for such folks.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you quoting James Earl Ray?

[Malika the Maiz]

The Frank Fakeman character is performed as writing at a third grade level so it’s too obvious for him not to get the difference between as and at.

[Martinned]

Yes, weird that people voted for that instead of a normal politician like Trump, who steals from the poor to give to the rich...

[Frank Drackman]

If they’re “poor” what do they have worth stealing?

[Brett Bellmore]

Usually when somebody starts raving about stealing from the poor to give to the rich, what they're actually talking about is somebody not stealing from the rich to give to the poor quite as much as they'd like.

Similar to where people rave about fossil fuels being subsidized, and when you look into it you find their complaint is that they're not being taxed enough.

[Martinned]

Or, in some cases, the reason why someone talks like that is because Congress is in the process of putting up taxes on the poor while reducing them on the rich.

[Frank Drackman]

If they’re so poor what are they taxing? I mean besides the taxes on their Cigarettes, Alcohol, and the Lottery tickets, which are more of a tax on the mathematically illiterate, not the poor

[Brett Bellmore]

Generally, the amount of government we have here is so expensive that most people are failing to pay for their share of it, which is (Partly; We're running a deficit!) compensated for by wildly over-charging a minority of people.

It's not "stealing from the poor to give to the rich" until you're actually giving to the rich. All that's going on is that the taxation system is becoming ever so slightly less 'progressive'. Relax, the wealthy are still be ripped off for the benefit of the poor, just not as much as before.

[Bwaaah]

I believe the bottom half of income earners in the U.S. pay approximately 3% of federal income taxes. The remaining 97% of taxes are paid by the top half of income earners.

The top 1% of income earners pay 46% of all income taxes.

Too easy on the rich. Too hard on the poor. Gimme a break.

(See https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/)

[ThePublius]

Indeed, aprrox. 1/2 the population pays no income tax, and in fact, receives money via welfare through the tax code, as, for example the EITC and other refundable tax credits.

[Magister]

Return of the lucky duckies!

[Bwaaah]

Brett: "Similar to where people rave about fossil fuels being subsidized, and when you look into it you find their complaint is that they're not being taxed enough."

A Democrat walks up to a businessman and asks if he has a $10 bill in order to teach him a lesson about finances. The businessman hands him a $10 bill, and the Democrat hands him back $9.

"You just took a dollar from me," says the businessman.

"No," says the Democrat, "I just gave you a $1 subsidy. I normally take $2."

His battle cry: "How much more do we have to subsidize corporations?"

[Krayt]

Every time something like this comes up, I have to hammer back down that letting people keep money they earned is not subsidizing them.

Wanting to tax the rich, and to what extent, are policy decisions. Declining to take your money is not subsidizing you. Subsidizing is taking someone else's money and giving it to you.

Everyone understands the purpose of the fraudulent rhetoric, of course. That's why they use it.

[Armchair]

Ever look into Mr. Mandami's personal finances?

[minus the clever name]

whatever your saying it goes against the facts

Biden roasted for sending South Africa $8 billion to shut down coal plants: ‘Weapon-grade lunacy’
The president said coal-fired power plants would be replaced with renewable energy sources
By Alexander Hall
Published December 15, 2022

HE IS THE STUPIDEST MAN TO WALK THE EARTH IN THE LAST 100 years

[jb]

To show how honest and good with the facts Armchair is being, Mamdani spent the years 5-7 in South Africa. Prior to that he lived in Uganda and since the age of 7 he's lived in the US.

We'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to whether he was "raised in South Africa".

[Martinned]

Given that Mamdani isn't white, the fact that he spent time in South Africa isn't pertinent to anything.

[ThePublius]

Yes, except that he recently went on about his third world upbringing while eating rice with his hand, which was a total lie.

Why do leftists lie about their upbringings, portraying themselves as products of poverty? AOC, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Mamdani, et.al.

[Malika the Maiz]

There’s a long, bipartisan tradition of playing up “humble roots” (see the whole “log cabin” thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course the Democrat tradition of fabricating "humble roots".

[Malika the Maiz]

Yeah, we all remember Romney’s “my dad had to give me a loan!!”

[Sarcastr0]

Did you see the recent right-wing attempt to paint AOC's aggressively middle class childhood home as a 'mansion?'

Som serious straw-grasping.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite/link?

[TwelveInchPianist]

She was fortunate enough to have benefited from the best education and environment that Westchester could offer a white-privileged, upper middle-class girl like her, I don't know why she has to act ashamed of who she is.

[ThePublius]

"aggressively middle class"

What the heck does that term mean?

"The median household income in Yorktown Heights is $144,111. This means Yorktown Heights income is much higher than the median income in the United States, with city household incomes in the 98th percentile."

She moved there when she was five. The issue is that she characterized herself as a rough and tumble, poor Bronx girl during her campaign. Get it?

[ThePublius]

"The progressive champion’s latest spat with President Donald Trump over the Iran strikes again called into question her true upbringing when she declared on X that she was a "Bronx girl" to make a point against the president.

The 35-year-old "Squad" member wrote in part on X last week: "I’m a Bronx girl. You should know that we can eat Queens boys for breakfast. Respectfully," she said, referring to the president’s upbringing in Queens as she called for his impeachment over his decision to bypass Congress in authorizing U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. "

She's a phoney. She's not a 'tough Bronx girl,' she's a privileged Westchester County girl, Sandy Cortez.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not that there's anything wrong with being a privileged Westchester County girl, of course.

It shows that her parents did well, giving her the tools she needed to succeed and get elected to Congress.

It's a shame she's trying to dissociate herself from their accomplishments.

[Sarcastr0]

As I said, ridiculous.

'No she's white! And *upper* middle-class!'
'If I do median income for all of America because I don't get statistics, she looks rich!'
'How DARE she say she's from the Bronx!'

Just pathetic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just whom are you quoting?
Also, still waiting for a cite or link to your comment above.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not clear. It sounds like he's saying that it's bad to point out that she's white and upper middle class, but he doesn't say why.

And he doesn't like medians for some reason.

[Sarcastr0]

It's thin gruel. And you all know it. Hence all the effort.

I do love telling AOC she's white. That bit has a lot to unpack.

[Mr. Bumble]

Doubling down on Il Douche's part.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Because of her cheekbones? I'm sure she knows she's white.

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

They know the typical Leftist is a moron and that they can get away with it.

See the comment above.

[not guilty]

Mamdani isn't white, Martinned??

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Q0HO5a%2fF&id=E48FEBFF9970B67E2E0970D221DF33B31F998A50&thid=OIP.Q0HO5a_FnQLARqkmH8NmJAHaFj&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fpatch.com%2fimg%2fcdn20%2fusers%2f23224711%2f20200609%2f052504%2fstyles%2fpatch_image%2fpublic%2fzohran-fullsize-4-1___09171758781.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.4341cee5afc59d02c046a9261fc36624%3frik%3dUIqZH7Mz3yHScA%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=799&expw=1065&q=zohran+mamdani+photograph&simid=608011961135805690&FORM=IRPRST&ck=857AA9131D36B63D7D5DC896AF3B0433&selectedIndex=0&itb=0&idpp=overlayview&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

[Armchair]

Well, given that it a joke in comparing him to Elon Musk, who also just spent his childhood in South Africa, that apparently you didn't get...

[Martinned]

If you thought it was a joke, I'll leave that conclusion to you. I just thought I'd add some relevant context, just like they did.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think you mean New York City Democrats, who were the only ones who actually voted for him.

[LexAquilia]

>Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Bans Rainbow Crosswalks
https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/07/01/sec-duffy-bans-rainbow-crosswalks-n4941346

This is what I voted for. Get fucked Pink Nazi Groomers.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in "pride" news from the UK:
" In March this year, Stephen Ireland, 41, was convicted at Guildford Crown Court of raping a 12-year-old boy, along with additional counts of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, sexual assault and making indecent images.

His partner David Sutton, 27, a volunteer at Pride in Surrey, was convicted of offences including making indecent photographs and possessing extreme pornographic images.

Both were also found guilty of voyeurism and perverting the course of justice by deleting phone data after becoming aware of the investigation. Ireland pleaded guilty to possessing 274 prohibited images of children and possessing an extreme pornographic image, while Sutton pleaded guilty to distributing a category A indecent photograph of a child, distributing three category B indecent photographs of a child, and possessing 64 prohibited images of children. On Monday, Ireland was sentenced to 30 years in prison and Sutton received a minimum 54-month sentence."
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2025/07/01/shock-alphabet-activistpride-organizer-is-a-pdo-n3804370

[Martinned]

In one country they elect a friend of Epstein president, in another country they put a child rapist in prison. I know where I'd rather live.

[Frank Drackman]

And we’re so glad you’re there(and so are Amuricas children)

[Mr. Bumble]

Bill Clinton hasn't been President for quite a while; so what's your point?

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s talking about Epstein’s closest friend.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/01/trump-jeffrey-epstein-tapes

[Mr. Bumble]

The Guardian quoting Michael Wolff: Hahahahahahahaha!

[ThePublius]

What a load of tabloid bullshit. You know Trump threw Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago? Jeez....

[Malika the Maiz]

Pathetic defense. Here’s some photos of him…throwing him out?

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/trump-and-epstein

[ThePublius]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/04/trump-banned-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a-lago-for-hitting-on-girl.html

[Malika the Maiz]

Omg, it gets more sad!

“But it also seems to have happened more than two years after a state grand jury charged Epstein with soliciting prostitution.”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A decade of "closest friendship", including dozens of photographs, trips on the "Lolita Express", being introduced to minors by Epstein and creeping around dressing rooms at Miss Teen USA can all be magically erased by allegedly "throwing Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago" in 2007... Hilarious.

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

Presumably, that was before kicking him out of Mar-a-Lago...but, gosh, it does seem that Trump already knew something about his "closest friend's" proclivities in 2002 (the date of the quote above).

[Martinned]

You voted for Trump.

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

Are you even allowed to comment about it?

If it isn't positive in support of the groomers, that could be a 24 month prison sentence.

Here in America they only send you to prison if you criticize the Jews.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean I could probably do this with republican politicians and evangelical pastors an I would never finish posting because new ones would just keep popping up.

[Malika the Maiz]

You could call Matt Gaetz a Nazi or a groomer, but pink?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol. What a stupid reason to vote.

[thenotoriousrbg]

very small government, very State's Rights of you. leave abortion to the states to decide, but how dare any town in the US paint a rainbow on a crosswalk!

[John F. Carr]

The dispute over rainbow crosswalks has been going on for several years. There's more to it than sodomites vs. the defenders of virtue. It's a broader argument about what traffic control devices are. You see it outside of the culture wars. The city of Newton, Massachusetts was recently ordered to paint over the green, white, and red stripes along the center of a street in an Italian neighborhood. Traffic control devices are functional, not decorative. The stripes in the middle of a two way street must be yellow.

Congress made an exception for Main Street in Bristol, Rhode Island, which can have red, white, and blue stripes. The power of the federal DOT to set standards for traffic control devices comes from Congress and can be changed by Congress.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Why the exception?

[Bwaaah]

Here he is, self-declared "socialist" and well-schooled Marxist Zohran Mamdani talking talking in 2021 to other socialists about organizing, about the "radical legislation we need to bring about," and the ultimate goal which is "to seize the means of production."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K7HDuoJ0MQ

The guy is a full-on Marxist, in full view. And the Democratic party stands quietly, understandingly, acceptingly of its latest and lowest candidate for our future. Finally, they are coughing up the solution to America's problem, which as Mamdani tells us, is the system itself.

The mealy-mouthed sympathizers like Sarcastr0 are winning the argument now with a very simple message: "That's not what I'm saying."

No need to debate the meaning of "socialism" anymore. A true believer has entered the room.

[Frank Drackman]

I always wanted Curtis Sliwa to be mayor

[ThePublius]

I really wish Curtis would join an Eric Adams coalition, and that Adams will win.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s a really good idea

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

America is not socialist, and never will be. Why does the (potential) election of a radical mayor of NYC frighten you so much?

There is zero possibility that even his eventual election as Mayor will spark an unstoppable socialist tsunami in America.

[Sarcastr0]

NYC has had really liberal mayors before. It's like these people have no faith in the inherent corruption of NYC politics, even after it's been undefeated for over a century.

[Bob from Ohio]

"really liberal mayors"

Marxists are not merely "really liberal". No enemies to the left I guess for you.

Any prior mayors want to globalize terror directed at Jews?

[Bwaaah]

Notice that none of the left-leaning advocates here express any reservations about the Marxist Democratic candidate. What they stand for is not in what they say, but what they don't say. This guy's got the right kinds of ideas for the new Democratic party: the old ideas of less capitalism, less markets, more government control, and a new one, oh yeah, TO HELL WITH THE ZIONISTS!

The new Democratic vision: Your opportunity for success rests in the expanding power of the state.

Of course, they're right that it'll never actually happen. But that doesn't negate the fact that they stand for retrying The Failed Dream, again. With vision like theirs, New York City has the possibility of becoming more like Chicago and San Francisco and Seattle, where the lives of working people decline under well-intentioned but failed policies.

[thenotoriousrbg]

I'm much more sympathetic simply to him (and Marxists in general) than I would have been a few years ago, simply because of how scared and upset (dare I say "triggered?") Zohran makes you.

the DNC is dead. neoliberalism is dead. you wouldn't fear Zohran if you didn't think his ideas could threaten MAGA. I'm not above saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend at this point.

[Bwaaah]

I don't "fear" Zohran. And I am not concerned about "MAGA." (I don't much like the faction, nor Orange Man, nor his policies; but neither do I fear that faction nor the Man; I do fear his policies.)

I am concerned about progress for the world in general, the U.S. in particular, and my home city, New York.

Zohran's strategies for improvement are effectively disproved, dumbass practices that worsen the conditions for the population. They're the kinds of solutions that immature, inexperienced, ideological and lazy thinkers come up with to make it look like there's an easy way for people's lives to improve. They falsely assert that there are structural, systematic barriers to progress inherent in the currently prevailing ways of American life. And they propose systematic "fixes" for the system, fixes that effectively destroy the rational underpinnings of society, markets, and economic output. In fact, they divorce themselves from the objective importance of economic output, and rephrase the challenge as a "moral" one.

But no matter what they say, it's all about money; all about capital. It's about more stuff for people who have less stuff...more housing, more health care, more child care, more paid leave, more food. Even if you say it's not about money, it's still about stuff that only money (or increased productivity) will buy.

Where will that stuff come from? Where will the money for the stuff come from? Not from improved productive capability of the people who are promised more stuff. Nope. It will come from a massive draw-down of productive output and already-produced capital...taking from the "haves" who capitalize our economy and giving that capital to the "have-nots" whose lack of productive capability means they already depend heavily on capitalization from the "haves." Nope...the dumbass Marxist says it's just a "moral" problem waiting for a "fair" formula for how to divide the proverbial pie.

Zohran, Marxists, promise to move capital from higher producers of capital to lower producers of capital, while increasing taxation and regulation that diminish productive capability and output. They promise more from people who will be producing less, and less, and less. This nonsense, from people who harp on notions of sustainability, is stupid. It's STUPID.

Marxist politicians like Zohran offer "expert" theories about money...theories from people who know little but how to spend it. Typically, they have almost no experience in the production of capital, and even less interest in producing capital. ("I'm an *idea* person.")

It's S - T - U - P - I - D, and a massively regressive strategy. That which they call "progress," that which they call "progressive," will assuredly be neither. They are the mostly misleading ruminations of shallow, lazy, divorced-from-production thinkers.

I know how to make a buck, and am pretty good at staying safe. Neither you nor Zohran are sufficiently steeped in the real material challenges of humanity or the challenges of capital formation. Neither of you has the modesty needed to faithfully guide the many toward real, personal progress. Your comment reflects a canned, inapplicable set of assumptions about me and where I'm coming from.

Anyway, I accept that you are relatively comfortable with Zohran, at least insofar as I think he's bad and that I am somehow your "enemy" (and that he is somehow mine). How do you come up with shit like that? What have I said that would make you think of me as your enemy?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm not "left-leaning" (although perhaps you consider libertarians "leftist"?), but I'd have thought it unnecessary to "express reservations" about socialist policies on Volokh.

However, if it makes you happy, I do much more than "express reservations" against socialism: I categorically reject it as fundamentally anti-freedom.

Moreover, even though I'm not a Democrat, I think it is a mistake for that party to "tack left" in response to Trump/MAGA's tack to the right. I fear that is exactly what they will do--particularly if Mamdani somehow wins the New York City mayoralty. But, I do not fear that America will suddenly turn red (lol) if Mamdani does win.

[shawn_dude]

Given the obvious fact that MAGAts are no longer able to distinguish between various leftward political and economic ideologies (Communist vs Marxist vs Democratic Socialist vs Social Democrat) and they cannot even understand the difference between far-left and far-right political ideologies (see: Communist vs Naziism/Fascism), it is unsurprising to see the MAGAts on this thread toss out random bogeymen because a garden-variety democratic socialist won a primary for a liberal city.

If Mamdani had come out and bragged about sexually assaulting women, the MAGAts would probably want to vote for him. But without some sort of overt morally reprehensible and legally suspect past, like with Adams, they cannot support him.

[Sarcastr0]

"Marxist"
"globalize terror"

Seems like all you got these days is hyperbolic complaints and complaining about other people being too hyperbolic.

[Bob from Ohio]

Socialism is a Marxist theory.

He wants to Globalize the Intifada. Hundreds of Jews wee murdered and thousands injured during the Intifadas. I'd call that terror.

Seems like all you got these days is minimizing stuff because he's on your side.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Speaking of murdering, did you get around to deciding whether the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre was a good thing or bad thing yet?

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0: "NYC has had really liberal mayors before."

Notice how Sarc implies that "really liberal" and "Marxist" are the same? He shows his true colors.

[Mr. Bumble]

I hate to belabor the point, but this is why he's Il Douche.

[Bwaaah]

It may not surprise you to know that I think "Il Douche" at the mere thought of the guy. It stuck with me the first time I saw your reference to him. I want to like the guy. But "Il Douche" so easily resonates because he almost always exudes douchiness. He never knows when to be straight up because to Il Douche , that's "not even a thing".

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Dave Barry recently wrote an autobiography. A 1990s sitcom, Dave's World, was based on his life and columns. Somewhat based.

I borrowed a DVD of one of the seasons. It's a silly sitcom that is a decent time-waster. Some of the scenes with the adults discussing things are well written. Various familiar faces pop up, including the judge from Night Court (the original) as Dave Barry.

Barry has one son IRL, but here he has two, neither with the name of his actual son. It's tossed in that he has no siblings while in real life he has two brothers and a sister (I think the sister might have died). They do use his wife's real name (Beth), but they divorced IRL around the time the sitcom premiered.

(Dave Barry was married three times. He had a short marriage right after college. After divorcing Beth, he married again and had a daughter. He is still married.)

Barry noted in his autobiography that it was uncomfortable to have a series that was so unlike his life. I can imagine. Imagine how Beth felt. People must have kept on referencing seeing her on television, & she wasn't even married to Dave Barry anymore.

Plus, Beth Barry in the show plays a teacher, while IRL she was an editor. The actress playing her does a good job, though.

[Krayt]

The Orange is the New Black people ran out of source material very quickly. They later admitted they just used it as an argument to kick off a Women in Prison show.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One bit of trivia learned from the show:

"Shel's young daughter goes as God for Halloween explaining that he is in fact, like her, a black woman."

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/DavesWorld

[John F. Carr]

"Somewhat based."

I think he described his role in the show as cashing the checks. I liked the series. It wasn't really about Dave Barry. He had a brief appearance in an early episode.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Right.

They took his name, his wife's name,* having a son, a stupid big dog, living in Florida, being a general goof, and some stuff from his columns. (For instance, I remember one of his columns was about his son being hurt & there was an episode about it.)

The rest was largely fictional.

==

* I suppose Beth Barry also got something for the portrayal.

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

Why can Jill Bidens chief of staff ignore all Congressional subpoena, but Peter Navarro could not?

[tylertusta]

I don't see any signs that Anthony Bernal is ignoring a subpoena that requires testimony by July 16th.

He was supposed to appear on a voluntary basis but backed out once he learned that he couldn't hide behind executive privilege.

[Frank Drackman]

So he was going to show up to testify but backed out when he realized he'd actually have to testify?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Today was the day the Continental Congress voted for independence. John Adams thought it would be the day celebrated.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2005/nr05-83

[ADAMS in 1776]
"Is anybody there?"
"Does anybody care?"
Does anybody see what I see?

They want me to quit
They say, "John, give up the fight!"
Still, to England, I say:
"Good night, forever good night!"

For I have crossed the Rubicon
Let the bridge be burned behind me!
Come what may, come what may
Commitment!

The croakers all say
We'll rue the day
There'll be hell to pay
In fiery purgatory

Through all the gloom
Through all the gloom
I can see the rays of ravishing light
And glory

Is anybody there?
Does anybody care?
Does anybody see what I see?

[tylertusta]

The family of the man who set multiple people on fire in Boulder Colorado were under threat of removal and sued in Colorado Federal Court. They were granted a TRO in Colorado and the case was transferred to Texas. Now the case has been dismissed.

The Texas judge (finally!) concedes that he did not have jurisdiction under the INA.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172850137/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172850137.29.0.pdf

[Martinned]

It looks like the 11th Circuit has come up with an entirely different way of dismantling the first amendment:

Katie Wood is a transgender woman who teaches at a public high school in Florida. Two years ago, the state enacted Fla. Stat. § 1000.071(3), which, as applied to Wood, prohibits her from using the honorific “Ms.” and the gendered pronouns “she,” “her,” and “hers” in exchanges with students during class time. Wood sued to enjoin the enforcement of § 1000.071(3) against her. The district court granted Wood a preliminary injunction, finding it substantially likely that the law violates her First Amendment right to free speech.

We disagree. Because we hold that Wood hasn’t shown a substantial likelihood that § 1000.071(3) infringes her free-speech rights, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.86739/gov.uscourts.ca11.86739.61.1.pdf

[LawTalkingGuy]

I thought Newsom was better than that.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I wonder the limits of this opinion's logic.

Can the school prevent her from using a feminine name?

[Roger S]

A judge could block him from legally changing his name.

[Brett Bellmore]

Would have to go back in time to do that, though, since he did that several years ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

The relevant statute

It does seem clear enough: He can lie all he wants about his sex in his private life, but not in work related speech during work hours. OTOH, he DID go to the trouble to legally change his name to Katie, so it's no lie to call himself that.

If I have any complaint about the ruling, it's the way it keeps referring to Mr. Wood as "she".

[thenotoriousrbg]

what if she has a sincerely held religious belief that she is female? or does 1A only protect the "right" religious beliefs?

[Brett Bellmore]

He can have a sincere religious belief that pi is three, but that wouldn't entitle him to teach that in math class. Separation of church and state, dude.

His being a guy isn't a matter of opinion, it's an objective fact.

[shawn_dude]

No one is surprised you'd complain about treating people with dignity.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You seem to see more and more people getting in trouble for lying about their personal characteristics. Rachael Dolezal, Jessica Krug, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Humoring somebody's delusions and/or pretenses isn't treating them with dignity, and even if it were it wouldn't matter, nobody's entitled to that.

I mean, dude: This isn't even a rat in a cage over your face, or electrodes on people's genitals; You expect to demand people see five fingers by threatening to call them impolite?

[Josh R]

Haven't we had enough of these straw man arguments? Brett, the other side doesn't think being trans is a delusion.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People often think religious beliefs are delusions. I wonder if we can say they are "lying" about experiences in that context.

I acknowledge some people use such dismissive language with religious claims but generally (1) I think that's often wrong (2) it can be constitutionally problematic.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"dismantling the first amendment:"

Government employees aren't allowed to say what they wish during the course of their employment? That's, like, the very definition of tyranny!

Imagine a voter's boot stamping on the governments face--forever!

[thenotoriousrbg]

> We hold only that when Wood identified herself to students in the classroom using the honorific “Ms.” and the pronouns “she,” “her,” and “hers,” she did so in her capacity as a government employee, and not as a private citizen.

wait a second.. by this opinion, schools could force teachers to use their students' and colleagues' chosen pronouns, if it were their policy. the court already conceded that her use of pronouns, outside of work, would be 1A protected speech, so you couldn't assert a 1A defense under free speech or freedom of religion.

I wonder if this occurred to the majority?

[Josh R]

As I understand the Freedom of Speech rights of government employees, I think that is correct. The government as employer can require or censor on-the job speech.

[John F. Carr]

"prohibits her from using the honorific 'Ms.' and the gendered pronouns 'she,' 'her,' and 'hers' in exchanges with students during class time."

Unless the teacher uses the third person in self-reference, only the word "Ms." is forbidden.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Any volunteers for pouring through the sentencing guidelines to see what time Diddy is looking at?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

‪Anthony Michael Kreis‬
‪@anthonymkreis.bsky.social‬

Just spitballing from a cursory look at the BOL and from what I know about the acquitted conduct, and I would not be surprised if he's realistically looking at 2-4 years. But who knows...

[Bob from Ohio]

"But who knows..."

Trump?

He's getting clemency.

[LawTalkingGuy]

While no minors were involved, that conclusion flows from PedoCon theory, which is a theory like gravity is a theory.

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

Comey's daughter was the prosecutor, so probably Diddy was the Deep State version of Mossad's Epstein.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Comey's daughter was the prosecutor,"

Really? Did not know.

Then that is another reason why clemency [or \a pardon maybe] will happen.

[Bob from Ohio]

"that conclusion flows from" Trump's clemency history. He loves pardoning or commuting the sentences for the famous.

[Commenter_XY]

I do not think it would be a good idea for POTUS Trump to intervene here. Now Puff Diddy can be shopped around in prison. Just desserts.

[Bob from Ohio]

"good idea "

Didn't say it was.

[John F. Carr]

A recent change to the sentencing guidelines excludes acquitted conduct from the guidelines calculation.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, how much time did Ted Kennedy get for actually killing a woman?

[Poxigah146]

He should get none. The Mann Act is almost never prosecuted, and only being convicted of that is basically an acquittal. If he gets anything other than time served, it's clear that the judge took into account the charges he was acquitted of.

[apedad]

Public Service Annoucement for those who receive Social Security

After a quirky June, Social Security checks will arrive in July on a normal schedule. But for some people, they may be significantly smaller.

That's because the Social Security Administration (SSA) will begin taking more money back from people who have gotten too much money from them in the past.

Previously, if the SSA, . . . overpaid a beneficiary due to incorrectly calculating benefits or because a beneficiary failed to update a change in marital status, income, or disability status, the agency would withhold 10% of their subsequent checks to put toward repaying that debt.

Starting in late July, that percentage goes up to 50%, meaning if you have received an overpayment your checks could be cut in half until the money is repaid.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2025/06/30/social-security-july-schedule-overpayment-garnishing/84413616007/

Not a SS recipient yet - but I can see the horizon.

[LexAquilia]

And on that horizon if you rip off the taxpayer you have to pay it back?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, scary... If you were considerably overpaid, and were hoping to keep the money. For most people? Big nothingburger.

I'd actually be more concerned about the cuts due to kick in 2033. I might still be around by then. The "trust fund" went into negative cash flow about 5-10 years ago, and is due to run out of IOU's by 2033, at which point payments will be reduced to match incoming funds, about a 23% cut and an end to COLAs.

[shawn_dude]

Or just increase/eliminate the salary cap for the tax and watch social security continue to keep the elderly out of abject poverty.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd also have to break the linkage between taxes paid in, and benefits paid out, or else it would just be a temporary gimmick. And if you did, you'd kill the last pretense that it's not just another welfare program.

[minus the clever name]

"Yet the Biden administration's witless posture "on immigration, its maddening insouciance "about our Southern border and stubborn lack of concern "about illegal immigrants, seems almost designed "to provoke anti-immigration outrage."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A graduate from my high school in the news. School must be proud.

[ThePublius]

Details?

[Bwaaah]

Nope. The whole scoop: "Somebody something."

[John F. Carr]

Bryan Kohberger?

[John F. Carr]

Ted Kaczynski's Class Reunion (SNL, 1996)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCr-lLVHPw0

[JoeFromtheBronx]

After President Donald Trump threatened to have Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected Democratic nominee for New York mayor, deported if he blocks Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in New York, Mamdani responded forcefully.

“The President of the United States just threatened to have me arrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp and deported. Not because I have broken any law but because I will refuse to let ICE terrorize our city,” Mamdani said in a statement.

“His statements don’t just represent an attack on our democracy but an attempt to send a message to every New Yorker who refuses to hide in the shadows: if you speak up, they will come for you. We will not accept this intimidation,” Mamdani, 33, added.

He also called Trump’s praise for New York Mayor Eric Adams — a Democrat who opted out of the primary to run as an independent — as “unsurprising” and a move that “highlights the urgency of bringing an end to this mayor’s time in City Hall.”

“At the very moment when MAGA Republicans are attempting to destroy the social safety net, kick millions of New Yorkers off of health care and enrich their billionaire donors at the expense of working families, it is a scandal that Eric Adams echoes this President’s division, distraction and hate. Voters will resoundingly reject it in November,” he said.

https://archive.ph/epPrN

[Roger S]

Mamdani may have broken laws. He says intent on refusing to obey federal laws.

[Frank Drackman]

He only honors Sharia law

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, the President threatened to have him arrested if he interferes with federal law enforcement, as he has threatened to do.

Non-commandeering allows him to refrain from assisting, but any active interference is still a crime.

[Sarcastr0]

"[A]rrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp and deported" is the threat, Brett.

You're lying. Because you know that's illegal.

And lawless and illegal orders are well within this President's ambit.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump is just making an in kind contribution to the general election campaign.

[Brett Bellmore]

NYC Mayor’s Race: Trump says he’ll ‘arrest’ Mamdani over potential ICE interference, praises Adams’ reelection bid

""[A]rrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp and deported" is the threat, Brett."

No, moron. "[A]rrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp and deported" is is how Mamdami himself characterized the threat. It's not remotely what Trump himself said.

What Trump actually said is what I related: That he'd have him arrested if he carried through on his threat to actively interfere with federal law enforcement.

[apedad]

Justice Thomas sounds alarm on courts misapplying First Amendment in political speech cases

The Supreme Court turned down a petition Monday from a teacher who claims she was wrongfully fired, but Justice Clarence Thomas raised serious concerns with how courts are handling such cases regarding controversial political speech.

In a lawsuit from Kari MacRae, the former teacher at Hanover High School in Massachusetts argued her employment was wrongfully terminated in retaliation of her exercising her First Amendment rights.

Prior to her employment, MacRae had “liked, shared, posted, or reposted” six memes or images on her personal TikTok account that are “‘spread widely online’” — expressing her views that immigration laws should be enforced, that an individual’s sex is immutable and that society should be racially color blind.

https://www.courthousenews.com/justice-thomas-sounds-alarm-on-courts-misapplying-first-amendment-in-political-speech-cases/

I actually tend to agree with Justice Thomas on this case in that there doesn't appear to be any confirmation that MacRae took any specific actions against students or other school officials.

It would have been far better for MacRae to face society's approval/disapproval of her stances - as I'm sure she is now.

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

Wow, believing there are males and females and we should treat everyone equally is so horrible! Hopefully she's a social outcast now. Thats like modern Nazism!

[Frank Drackman]

Judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin???? KILL HIM!
Remember hearing someone say on that late night radio show that MLK was taken out by his own kind, pissed about his support of North Vietnam and “non violent social change”

Frank

[apedad]

Probe into Biden's alleged mental decline cover-up deepens with more former White House officials to testify

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/investigation-biden-mental-decline-cover-up-deepens-more-former-white-house-officials-testify?msockid=26c4656b6a0367b538de73616b11661a

Great!

Now we'll have precendent to review Trump once he's out of office.

And Trump WILL NOT have any friends when he leaves office; all bridges will be burned.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sure. Time has shown that the rules have been applied consistently.

[Kazinski]

You don't think its a legitimate concern of Congress that either the 25th amendment is ineffective, or high officials ignored their oaths to support and defend the constitution, including the 25th amendment.

Besides according to many, the 25th amendment should be applied to Trump, by JD Vance, maybe this is a prelude.

[hobie]

2020 - "Trump Says He ‘Aced’ Cognitive Test, but White House Won’t Release Details"

2025 - "Trump says he took a cognitive test as part of his latest physical"

Like fish in a barrel, eh Kazinski? We all expect your equal outrage in three...two...one!

[Kazinski]

Equal outrage for what?

You may not like how he is doing the job, but there is no indication he is not the one in charge and driving his own agenda.

[hobie]

My point being, if a president is brain dead or is a functioning psychopath, clearly they obviously don't have to tell anyone. Besides, what does it matter to you? I'm the one voting for the old bastard. What's amusing is that you seem obsessed to the point of criminal investigation that I must be made to know the minutia of Biden's cognition. Again, I don't care. It is clearly not discoverable

[shawn_dude]

No, I don't. Because if it was, there'd have been an investigation into Reagan's second term at a minimum. By all reports, he was suffering from alzheimer's in his second term.

But, if you think it *should* be Congress's "legitimate concern," then I posit heavy drug abuse by POTUS would also meet that same bar. Maybe we should have Trump tested for drugs like amphetamines (Adderall). Let's get a real health report for him published. I'm sure Xi, Putin, and Kim already know the truth so why shouldn't the rest of us? That couldn't possibly have any national security implications.

[Brett Bellmore]

"By all reports, he was suffering from alzheimer's in his second term."

Yeah, except for the reports from the doctors who actually examined him.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh yeah, Regan not having Alzheimer's in the 2nd term this is truly a hill you should die on.

[Frank Drackman]

Reagan didn’t die until 2004, some 15 yrs after he left Orifice, not the natural history of Alzheimer’s
But hey, I’m just a licensed Physician

[Mr. Bumble]

...and with more brain function then Il Douche has today.

[Mr. Bumble]

Interesting article on how Alzheimer's research may have been sandbagged, by "experts", for thirty years.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/25/alzheimers-cabal-thwarted-progress-toward-cure/

[SRG2]

We will soon hear defenders of the GOP's covering up of Trump's decline saying, "the Democrats did it first!"

[Swede425]

LOL!
I know, right?
If only the press would cover (up) Trump like they did Biden, then we'd have known about his obvious mental decline immediately!
Instead, I guess we'll just have to wait for Trump to retire before these journalists can release books and do their mea culpa tours on how they were all fooled by his staff.
Alas, we'll have to wait another 3.5 years before they can finally report the truth I guess.

[M L]

The big beautiful bill seems like kind of a joke. Spending is just more of the same we've seen for decades from both parties. Then the extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts and some more tax cuts. This is just more of the same stuff the Republican party has been doing all my life, as far as I can tell.

In Trump 1.0 not much happened legislatively other than tax cuts. Same for Trump 2.0?

As I've commented about here repeatedly, there are so many aspects of the Trump presidency and policies that I disagree with. One good thing is that he basically stopped illegal immigration completely just with the executive branch. He did that in Trump 1.0 and now again. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/07/01/homan-migrant-arrests-at-borders-drop-41-percent-in-june-to-new-record-low-zero-admitted-to-u-s/ Of course ,when the open border guys get back in office (Democrats and historically most Republicans) they can just open the borders back up again to massive floods of illegals.

[Brett Bellmore]

But when they do that, nobody will doubt that it is deliberate.

I mean, sure, Sarcastr0 will claim to think the illegal immigration rate shooting up in February after the new President takes office is just a coincidence, but I doubt his heart will be in the performance.

[tylertusta]

You have no proof that he won't give you an A-tier theatrical performance!

[apedad]

But you pointed out that there WERE arrests previously which means there were NOT open borders.

[Brett Bellmore]

They had lowered enforcement levels as far as they thought were politically survivable. Election day revealed that they'd miscalculated that point.

[Sarcastr0]

Unfalsifiable.

[tylertusta]

Unacceptable!

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

Haha yeah. Nothing has changed with immigration at all.

You sound pretty smart, do yoy have a blog?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, once you dismiss all the evidence, there's no evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

It was pointed out to you the numbers didn't fit your open borders story.

Your response was that was just so cause the Dems couldn't get away with actual open borders.

So
1. You lied about open borders
2. Any number of arrests will be just the Dems doing the minimum they can get away with.

Congrats, you're a liar and your fallback is unfalsifiable.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was actually pointed out to YOU that illegal immigration shot up as soon as Biden took office, and stayed up at unprecedented levels until he left. You dismissed this as coincidence.

[Sarcastr0]

Unprecedented levels! And if the numbers don't check out, rest assured they're as unprecedented as Dems dared.

Unfalsifiable.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The big beautiful bill seems like kind of a joke."

The immigration provisions alone make it good, rest sees liketheusual mixed bag of good and bad that you always see in these reconciliation bills.

[Bob from Ohio]

"sees liketheusual"

seems like the usual

[M L]

It does sound like there is some good funding for enforcement of immigration law.

I guess there is a larger context here which is that Trump is at his peak power and has remarkable control of his party, some say not since FDR has a president had that. And this after all that has happened with attempts to impeach him, imprison him, kill him, confiscate his wealth etc.

There seems to be a sense that Trump even achieving a bill that is sort of "business as usual" in a lot of ways is a resounding victory - reflected in how both sides are reacting.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump even achieving a bill that is sort of "business as usual" in a lot of ways is a resounding victory"

The margins in the House and Senate are paper thin. Herding enough of them to pass it would be quite a victory.

[Brett Bellmore]

And getting actual immigration enforcement funding is a huge breakthrough, given that the GOP establishment has been utterly dedicated to frustrating such enforcement by starving it of resources.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, agree about immigration funds, enforcement.

Won't be easy for Speaker Johnson to get it over the goal line.

[Josh R]

He will figure out a way to bribe the holdouts. They are more chicken of Trump than TACO Trump is of anything.

[Commenter_XY]

It is tough when the shoe is on the other foot. One empathizes, almost.

[Josh R]

There is nothing tough about it. We know anyone who holds out against Trump faces political extinction (Rand Paul being an exception).

[hobie]

"And this after all that has happened with attempts to impeach him, imprison him, kill him, confiscate his wealth etc."

Here, let me fix that for you...you may have forgotten all this stuff:

And this after all that he has done: committing fraud in NY; trying to steal an election; digitally raping a woman; paying off a porn star.

That covers all the affirmative acts. As for confiscating his money. That was for reimbursing the rape victim for pain and suffering; and the state of NY for the fraud.

As for killing him. Well, we just love shooting politicians in this country, don't we. That Trump happened to be one of them doesn't make him special.

I must hand it to you rubes, your messiah has one hell of a resume

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me fix that for YOU:

Accurately describing paying for an NDA as a legal expense, excessively contesting an election, failing to have an adequate alibi for an unspecified date, obtaining NDA from a porn star.

[LexAquilia]

Don't forget they actually criminalized novel legal theories.

[hobie]

You didn't address the other stuff, Brett. But, hey, that's how we all roll here

[hobie]

I'm sure all of you have seen hundreds of times chefs furiously basting and finishing their steaks in a pan with sizzling butter, fresh thyme sprigs and garlic cloves. I have too, but until recently, I had never actually done it...seemed superfluous to me.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

OMG! That little essence that makes a steak restaurant quality, that makes it 'steakhouse' or 'gourmet'...THIS IS IT!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Use rosemary as well as thyme with the butter baste.

[Frank Drackman]

Medium Rare? an Aristrocrat!
Anyone gets that Reference, meet me at TGI Friday’s Atlanta Hartsfield-Zimbabwe Airport Atrium 10pm tomorrow night and drinks are on me,
Turn 63 on the 4th, me and Uncle Sammy!

Frank

[BrotherMovesOn]

I landed at Harare Airport once for about an hour.
No passengers boarded nor did anyone deplane.
Never found out exactly why but if it was to board meals it was definitely worth it. That Zimbabwean steak was the best airline meal I've ever had.
I didn't have a telephoto but I'm pretty certain I saw a goat tethered to a fence post about a hundred and fifty yards from the section we were temporarily parked on. No one knew why.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated a state abortion ban that was enacted in 1849 and had been dormant for five decades.

Powerful concurrence.

https://archive.ph/I3hTX
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=979066

[Moderation4ever]

If the Wisconsin Republicans want to regulate abortion they can. What I have seen to date is that Republicans have hoped to rely on the 1849 law because they realize how unpopular abortion regulation are and have wanted to avoid voting on new regulations. So now they have a choice take a stand and vote on new regulations or leave abortion decision to patients and their doctors.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The governor is a Democrat. They do not have a veto-proof majority.

[Magister]

They did have a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature from 2011 to 2018, and could have made it clear that there was no repeal of the unenforceable 1849 law. They chose not to expend political capital on that, just as Democrats did not repeal the 1849 law when they had control before that.

[Davy C]

The law in question, 940.04, was in fact amended in 2011. Are you saying that the legislature was amending a repealed law?

[Frank Drackman]

It is in their nature to destroy themselves,
You know who isn’t worried about access to kill their unborn babies? Asians, Hispanics, Africans, Arabs,
And the Mormons, so in 2125 (if man is still alive) the world will consist of Asians, Hispanics, Africans, Arabs, and a small flock of Magic Underwear wearing non Coffee drinking Mormans (want to irritate a Mormon? Tell them their “de-caffeinated Coffee still has some Caffeine)

Frank

[Jazzizhep]

I didn’t get the “medium rare? An Aristocrat” reference. But I do get the 2125* reference even though it was decades before my birth. My dad would sing that song anytime he wanted to mock the music he was hearing. Do I qualify for free drinks?

*Except it is 2525; 3535; 4545…

[Frank Drackman]

The “Medium Rare” is from Goodfellas, when the guys are eating steak in the Atlanta Federal Pen, one of them asks for his steak medium rare, Drinks on me!

[Moderation4ever]

The world is changing Frank. People who at one time would only marry within their group are now open to marrying others groups. So in the year 2125 I expect that the world will not consist of Asians, Hispanics, Africans, Arabs, a a small number of Mormans, but rather just humans.

[Frank Drackman]

All in their flying cars no doubt

[John F. Carr]

Was this case contested or collusive?

[Moderation4ever]

It was a big driver in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race won by Susan Crawford. So I would say contested.

[Joe_dallas]

https://thereport.live/diplomacy/over-1.4-million-deaths-feared-by-2030-due-to-usaid-cuts-lancet-study-warns/36213

Really - cuts in USAID will cause 1.4 million deaths by 2030?

[apedad]

Not sure about the 1.4M deaths but a lot of farmers and folks in agriculture in Alabama, Kansas, Missouri, etc., are certainly pissed off: https://www.usaidstopwork.com/agricultural-impact

[Joe_dallas]

Nice link from an advocacy group -
Yes it would seem they are pissed off - , you would too if your gravy train/slush fund got slashed.

[Bwaaah]

I heard it was like 30 million deaths. (As I say this, I'm gesturing in a way that you can't see.)

[Frank Drackman]

If Joe Biden had a Stroke, how would we know?

[Bwaaah]

That would probably be on a need-to-know basis, so probably, we wouldn't.

How would Joe know? What day is this?

Anyway, stroke shmoke. It'd have to be a pretty bad one to change the clinical picture. He's still ready for the win in November.

[Sarcastr0]

“I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I’ve come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the [Nuremberg] defendants. A genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow man. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
-Captain G. M. Gilbert

Some around here seem to empathize only with people very like themselves. Everyone else they treat as underserving of dignity or humanity.

Seems bad.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Komment Karen with the finger wag!

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, a Nazi comparison. How original!

[Magister]

It looked more like an evil comparison. People here regularly demonstrate being evil without being Nazis.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it's not Nazi.

But talking about cutting benefits so you can immiserate illegals is some evil shit.

Add in the research cuts and its stupid shit too. At least if you like America and science.

[Bob from Ohio]

"[Nuremberg] defendants" is not a Nazi reference? Pull the other one.

[Sarcastr0]

Purposefully failing basic reading comprehension is neither evil not stupid, it’s just tedious and unpleasant.

[Bwaaah]

Another trite Nazi reference is tedious and unpleasant. Bob doesn't have a comprehension problem; you write such crappy obnoxious stuff that can't own your own shit.

[LexAquilia]

Careful, you might earn Sacastr0's disapproval. Something he rarely dispenses, so it's very powerful when he does.

[Bwaaah]

If it weren't for all that he stands against, he would stand for nothing at all. I prefer to be in the heap with all that he rejects over the ball of spittle that encompasses everything he represents.

He mutes me. That's at least a little satisfying.

[Magister]

Nazis who were evil persuaded people that lack of empathy is the essence of evil (Nazis are indisputably evil). There are other evil people who are not being called Nazis who also demonstrate that lack of empathy.

It is entirely possible that the lot of you are Nazis, but Sarcastr0 did not do a Nazi comparison.

[LexAquilia]

If only Conservatives had a heart, then they'd be Democrats!

All Whites with a heart long for Sacastr0's healthcare equity where they get deprioritized based upon their skin color, so we can finally have healthcare equity! If Conservatives had a heart, they would also want the government to be in full control so not just healthcare would be equitable but EVERYTHING would!

Could you imagine the utopia? A big central government making sure that BIPOCs and LGTBQs finally get their leg up in the world! Empathetic White, natural families with hearts freely sacrifice themselves at the feet of social justice and equity has meted out by a wonderful and altruistic government filled with Sarcastr0's!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Evil is banal and unoriginal. People doing evil things will seem like Nazis. And make no mistake, this immigration policy is headed along a similar evil path. A year or two from now when immigration has fallen and many have been deported (to dangerous places where they’ll be tortured, killed, or enslaved) and there have been hundreds of deaths of people in camps (including kids and citizens) you’ll scoff at the Nazi comparisons too. And you’ll scoff as the categories of undesirables increases. And you’ll scoff when it’s thousands of negligent deaths. And you’ll scoff when it’s deliberate murders that are overlooked. And you’ll scoff when extermination is policy.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'll scoff until the anti-psychotics kick in and your fantasies clear up, too.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Two things:

1. You routinely fantasize about being placed in camps and oppressed based on nothing other than people saying maybe we should have gun control and gay marriage so LOL at you all of people calling me psychotic when you’re so utterly desperate to be oppressed.

2. Deaths are already up in ICE detention compared to last year. ICE is gonna have still trying to meet detention goals while not having facilities. People will be increasingly held in worse conditions. ICE will be hiring less intelligent and skilled agents as they ramp up their efforts. This is going to inevitably result in more deaths and deliberate violence. Look at any city police department when they have overcrowded jails and dumbass cops and guards. It’s not great. Imagine how bad it’s going to be when there are literal children and cancer patients taken from hospitals. It’s gonna start with medical negligence and go from there. Plus you think these people are just signing up for a term? No way. They’re going to want to keep their jobs which means: more targets and more detentions.

We already have high level politicians and pundits talking about massive numbers they want gone. They can’t meet that with “illegals.” They have to start ripping up people’s legal status (which they are). Denaturalizing citizens (which they want to) and taking legal citizenship from people born here (they’ll do that too). You think people with legal status, especially citizens born here, are going to just go to a dangerous third world country voluntarily? No they’ll try and fight to stay at their home. And be in detention. Conditions will deteriorate.

https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/1939831588902109629?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

High level influencers are already “joking” about murdering the entire Hispanic population of the US. You think they’re going to work hard to prevent deaths?

I’d love to be wrong. But unless Dems obtain a veto proof majority that can seriously scale back this effort in 2027. A LOT of deaths are gonna happen. And you’re gonna be scoffing at Nazi comparisons while excusing/justifying the deaths.

And deep down, you know that too.

[Bunny495]

"They can’t meet that with “illegals.”"

Depending on who you believe there at least twelve million plus illegal aliens in America. I am not trying to get in a pissing contest with anyone but it is quite possible that number is low.

In any case there are plenty of "illegals" to meet the numbers. As for deaths while "illegals" are in custody there is always the option of self-deportation for anyone in custody.

Riddle me this Batman, why do so many peeps keep forgetting self-deportation is always an option?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well if you have a life here and have an argument for why your status is legal, you’d stay. If there aren’t any countries that’ll take you, you can’t really self-deport can you?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Very few people, even commenters here, have a genuine incapacity for empathy. It’s takes some time and effort for the genuine ghouls to condition enough people that way (although way less than you’d expect or hope). Usually people sort of have a baseline moral sense that needs to be readjusted for them to support increasing monstrosities. That’s why you’ll see right wing influencers talk about toxic empathy and weaponizing or manipulating emotion a lot to condition people to readjust their baseline. And it works. You see the adjustment happen in real time as an observer. Most people who genuinely thinks they’d have empathy for people in concentration camps and especially extermination camps won’t be able to notice the shift as they start excusing/justifying negligent deaths and then start shrugging off deliberate murder.

This is where a popular influencer and advisor to the president is at:

https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/1939831588902109629?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

If the end point for someone in power is gruesome murder an order of magnitude larger than the Holocaust, it shouldn’t be surprising to see Commenter XY making lame jokes about dead kids who are birthright citizens a year from now.

[Sarcastr0]

The ability to tune empathy is important, maybe vital to functioning among one's fellows.

But too much of that ability, or tying that to some other goal like conformity, and you're indistinguishable from someone without empathy.

I see it in my agency. The current chaos selects and elevates a certain kind of person who is swift and creative because they are unencumbered by concerns for the impact of their actions.
Perhaps not horrid people before, but they're incentivized to lean into becoming horrid now.

[LexAquilia]

I remember all that empathy you showed when your ilk at FEMA were skipping over White homes after that hurricane in NC.

You were so empathic I'm surprised Star Trek didn't call to see if you wanted to star in their new series!

[Magister]

You can't even accurately remember that all those stories about FEMA doing bad things were false.

[LexAquilia]

lol wow, we have a BlueAnon right in our mists!

lmao you ppl are nutso

[Magister]

Way to trot out the evidence! Turns out FEMA got dinged in 2021 for giving more disaster relief to white people.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/advisers-rebuke-fema-for-racial-disparities-in-disaster-aid/

[RedheadedPharoh]

Do you know how time works?

[John F. Carr]

A depressed voice on public radio today informed me we now live in a "sultanistic oligarchy" as opposed to the kindler and gentler kind of oligarchy we are accustomed to. The expression appears to have been invented or popularized by political scientist Jeffrey A. Winters. The internet tells me Max Weber coined the word sultanism back in the days when there was a sultan.

[Bwaaah]

I'm going to need an alternative assessment that's easier to say. (Although "partisan rigamarole" was easy enough.)

I met up in the park last week (on a beautiful sunny day) with an acquaintance who was recovering from hip surgery performed a few months ago. He was visibly unsteady.

"How you feeling?" I asked.

"Not well," he answered with a troubled look.

"Pain?" I asked.

"No. Not that. The Supreme Court."

"Seriously?" I asked. "We're pretty much safe and at peace, the earth is still a beautiful place, and no matter what they say, you're surrounded by people, very few of whom mean you any harm." I gestured toward the various people in the park at the time.

He wasn't interested. He probably lives in a sultanistic oligarchy.

[John F. Carr]

The radio folks were overdramatic, but Trump is unusual in the strength of his personal influence and Musk in the openness of his boasting about influence on the election. I don't know if Musk is really any more influential than William Randolph Hearst who owned a substantial fraction of the means of communication of his day.

[Frank Drackman]

National Pubic Radio?? They haven’t had anything really worth listening to since “Car Talk” (how they found the 2 MIT degree/Liberal Mechanics in the World….)
The Successor to “a Prairie Home Companion”, “Live from Here” was actually pretty good, of course it was cancelled
The hourly “News”?? Could be Al-Jizz-era, actually Al-Jizz-era is more balanced

Frank

[Bunny495]

Is that Click and Clack or Frick and Frack?

[John F. Carr]

The National Retail Federation sued New York to block the state's law on algorithmic pricing ("surveillance pricing"). The law is said to unconstitutionally burden commercial speech. To the extent the law regulates pricing it is clearly consistent with past practice. But the law requires specific text on a web page, possibly next to every price, stating "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA." Compare the California anti-deepfake law that requires disclaimers so big they might not be able to fit on the screen.

The lawsuit is case 1:25-cv-05500 in the Southern District of New York. The complaint is linked from the NRF press release at
https://nrf.com/media-center/press-releases/nrf-asks-federal-court-to-block-new-york-algorithmic-pricing-law.

The complaint alleges algorithmic pricing is better for consumers. By established custom, although not by official rules, a complaint is allowed to include lies.

[LexAquilia]

How long before the Equity types get a hold of this and start charging White people more?

[Poxigah146]

The fact that 79% of Americans answered in a poll that they believe it's the government's duty to ensure people have health insurance if they can't afford it shows how far we've fallen.

[hobie]

Abrego Garcia Was Beaten and Tortured in El Salvador Prison, Lawyers Say

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was made to kneel overnight, denied bathroom access and confined in an overcrowded cell with bright lights and no windows, his lawyers say.

He's not Jewish, so why should we care how he's treated under ostensible US custody that we're paying for? Or are we paying to have our prisoners tortured?

I'm not comfortable paying for men to be tortured. And, yeah, I'm paying for it. You think Salvador is doing all this for free?

[Mr. Bumble]

"his lawyer says..."
That's compelling.

[hobie]

You've worked off of less for your own assertions...haven't you, Bumble?

Lord this is easy

[Mr. Bumble]

Shouldn't you be out trapping stray cats and geese with your Haitian neighbors for your Fourth of July BBQ in the hood?

[hobie]

You saying his lawyers lied to the public...possibly under oath?

[Commenter_XY]

No problem, Arthur hobie. Ship St Abrego's wife beating, human trafficking, terrorist ass to Libya next time.

[Bunny495]

Not sure what to make of this

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-s-trump-russia-collusion-report-was-corrupt-from-start-cia-review/ar-AA1HQtUh