Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

A bench trial begins today in Boston today to determine whether the Trump administration policy of targeting student visa or green card holders who speak or write in favor of Palestinian rights offends guaranties of the First and/or Fifth Amendments or violates the Administrative Procedures Act. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/06/trump-effort-deport-pro-palestinian-activists-trial-00439997?fbclid=IwY2xjawLX0RRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHmggx6QoPBDFKclK80xsNvckxYJ-LVvQVpkrZGBhiaEM7bhGFTZSWApMkpnH_aem_PsQhJbvj92ImLyYjxOfBzQ

I am glad to see this issue ventilated in a full blown trial. As John Henry Wigmore said, “Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” 3 Wigmore, Evidence §1367, p. 27 (2d ed. 1923). To no one's surprise, the Trump administration squealed like Bobby Trippe ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qz4L1O84_I ) to keep this lawsuit from coming to trial or even proceeding to discovery.

What is it about having to actually produce admissible evidence that causes the MAGAts to break out in hives?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is there any reason to suppose any result the MAGA base disapproves will not be negated by novel Supreme Court procedural findings? Cases and Controversies is a dead letter. It's all Process and Politics for the Court now.

[minus the clever name]

The way you write is atrocious, did you mean to say, Is there any reason....will be negated BECAUSE THE COURT IS CEDING TO MAGA?
That is the only sense I can make of what must be a causal statement of some sort. Yikes

[Stephen Lathrop]

minus — To put it that way would make no sense. The hypothesis is that the court below will not cede to MAGA. Which sets up a situation where corrupt political partisanship on the Supreme Court sets the lower court's lawfully-minded decision aside, without reaching the merits. That way, the SCOTUS can license Trump's lawless administration to do whatever it wants. It can do that again and again, in case after case. The SCOTUS just has to invent procedural reasons to invalidate each challenge, which it can do without making bad law on the merits. Looks like that is the way Roberts plans to get the Court out of the pickle Trump's lawlessness has put it in.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, how is a bench trial different than a jury trial, in terms of what happens in the courtroom?

You ever argue a case in a bench trial? What is that like?

[Frank Drackman]

A Judge decides the case instead of a Jury, which is preferrable, because you know, a Jury is made up of Stew-pid MAGA's who believe it's sensible to kick Ham-Ass supporters Asses back to where they came from.

[not guilty]

Frank, would it make a difference to you if the targets were student visa or green card holders who speak or write in support of Israeli government policies?

[Frank Drackman]

Absolutely

[not guilty]

How so?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, pretty trivially, Hamas is a terrorist organization that has victimized Americans, and Israel... isn't.

[not guilty]

And that makes targeting either group of supporters for deportation constitutionally permissible how, Brett?

Please show your work.

[Frank Drackman]

Missing the section of the Constitution that protects Terrorists and their supporters

[not guilty]

Which of the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are "Terrorists," Frank?

The complaint is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282460/gov.uscourts.mad.282460.1.0.pdf

As for supporters of Palestinian rights, the sections of the Constitution that protect them are the First and Fifth Amendments. (Which also protect supporters of the Israeli government.)

[Brett Bellmore]

You conspicuously did not ask why it was constitutionally permissible, but instead why it made a difference to Frank.

You can make an argument that there's no constitutional difference between speech supporting terrorists who attack Americans, and speech supporting an allied nation. Making the case that people shouldn't regard them differently is a bit harder.

[not guilty]

Brett, when George Orwell wrote 1984, he did not intend it as an instruction manual. The Trump administration bozos are punishing thoughtcrime.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, technically wrongspeak, not wrongthink. If it were just wrongthink, how would the government know?

But it remains a fact that people are free to regard differently punishment of odious speech and punishment of innocent speech, even where they're constitutionally the same.

This case is rather more legally complicated than if the students in question were actually citizens, of course, first because deportation isn't technically a punishment, but instead revocation of a privilege extended on a discretionary basis. And secondly because there's considerable precedent that the 1st amendment doesn't really apply in the context of immigration.

But, anyway, you asked why it made a difference to him, and that was a pretty silly question to ask.

[Sarcastr0]

But it remains a fact that people are free to regard differently punishment of odious speech and punishment of innocent speech, even where they're constitutionally the same.

People are free to be unprincipled about which speech government punishes? Sure, but that's bad.

Whatta libertarian, folks!

[bernard11]

Making the case that people shouldn't regard them differently is a bit harder.

But that's not what the case is about. As individuals we are free to regard them however we like. The issue is whether the government can treat them differently.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, if I'm in an actual position as a government agent, I'm obligated to operate according to the Constitution. This might, in some contexts, obligate me to treat support for Hamas as legally equivalent to support for Mother Theresa. Under some circumstances, not all.

As a private citizen watching from the sidelines, I'm not obligated to get as pissed off over somebody advocating for good works and charity as I am over somebody advocating for genocide and terrorism. Though if the advocate is a citizen I'll tell you that under most circumstances they're equally protected visa vi the government.

But these aren't citizens, they're foreigners present in the country on our sufferance, and, no, I don't think we have to be remotely as tolerant of advocacy for a terrorist organization by a foreigner present in the country, as we do when it's a citizen.

Citizenship has its perks.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But that's not what the case is about. As individuals we are free to regard them however we like. The issue is whether the government can treat them differently."

That is, however, what I took Not Guilty to be asking about.

If they were citizens, that the government couldn't treat them differently would be an easy conclusion. As they're not citizens, it's much less of an open and shut case legally.

But in neither case are we required to view them the same.

[Sarcastr0]

Both bernard and I made a distinction between liking speech and liking government punishing that speech.

You missed that pretty vital distinction. Both times.

But these aren't citizens, they're foreigners you just said this was about people not governments. And here you are reversing yourself so you can push your usual carveout for this group you can't seem to think of as people with the dignity and inalienable rights that people have.

You also sing a different tune re: private businesses and liking/disliking speech.

Your free speech libertarianism is a tangled up mess with no clear throughline that isn't situationally partisan.

[Drewski]

"No, technically wrongspeak, not wrongthink. If it were just wrongthink, how would the government know?"

I am legitimately shocked that Brett has never read 1984. Especially considering he's such an avid practitioner of crimestop.

[not guilty]

"That is, however, what I took Not Guilty to be asking about."

The fact that this discussion is about the AAUP v. Rubio lawsuit should have given you a clue, Brett. As should my link to the freaking complaint.

Context matters. The Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon the Trump administration's ideological-deportation policy.

[bernard11]

Hamas is a terrorist organization that has victimized Americans,

And how does speaking or writing in support of Palestinian rights make one a terrorist?

If I write a comment supporting a two-state solution am I now a terrorist?

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say it does. It makes one an advocate for a terrorist organization, not an actual terrorist. Neither is good, though the latter is certainly worse.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, it looks like you said that if bernard says he supports a two-state solution he's an advocate for a terrorist organization.

Did you mean to say that?

[Commenter_XY]

Is the PA a terror group? I would say Yes, based on behavior. They support hamas, a Judeocidal terror group.

[bernard11]

Are you serious?

First, arguing for a two-state solution is not advocating for the PA.

Second, the PA is not recognized as a terrorist organization by the US, the EU, or the UN.

[David Nieporent]

Is the PA a terror group? I would say Yes, based on behavior. They support hamas, a Judeocidal terror group.

What? The PA and Hamas are enemies. Hamas threw the PA out of Gaza and took over almost 20 years ago. That's why the West Bank does not look like Gaza does now.

[minus the clever name]

You make a common fallacious assumption: Maybe it's the fact that these students are just plain causing trouble, dissent , acrimony , public negativity -- and here's your fallacy --- most of them are Hamas supporters.

[Nelson]

“ just plain causing trouble, dissent , acrimony , public negativity”

All of which is protected by the First Amendment.

“ and here's your fallacy --- most of them are Hamas supporters.”

You accuse someone else of making a fallacious argument using the most blatant and dishonest fallacy there is - begging the question.

Saying they are Hamas supporters is a conclusion. You have to actually prove it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Israeli children don't chant "death to America."

[A Japanese Student]

Or, because this isn't a suit at common law.

[not guilty]

I have had numerous bench trials. The judge there sits as finder of fact as well as applying the law. The same rules of evidence apply, but as a practical matter, where there is no risk of a mistrial, the judge may allow a bit more leeway in a bench trial. A judge sitting without a jury will typically set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law separately, while a jury most often renders only a general verdict.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I believe one of Trump's civil trials was a bench trial. The NY one brought by Attorney General Letitia James about his businesses engaging in "financial fraud by presenting vastly disparate property values to potential lenders and tax officials, in violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12).

The trial took place from October 2023 to January 2024. As a result of the trial, presiding judge Arthur Engoron ordered the defendants to disgorge a total of US$364 million of ill-gotten gains, among other penalties." --Wikipedia

[LexAquilia]

That's how we know it was fair!

[Brett Bellmore]

Currently under appeal, and last I heard, the appeals court wasn't sounding very happy with the theory behind the case.

[Joe_dallas]

Especially considering the absurdity of believing the bank relied on the financial statements, not withstanding the testimony of the bank's risk officer. Simply not credible.

[Martinned]

It makes you wonder why they bother with financial statements at all...

[Brett Bellmore]

The customer's financial statements are used at the initial "Is this even worth going through the motions?" stage. They're used to determine if it's worth going to the expense of performing actual due diligence, rather than just summarily rejecting the loan.

There are occasions when you get a summary approval, of course. But they usually involve loans to depositors that are secured by the deposit, or relatively small loans to people with absurdly good credit ratings.

[David Nieporent]

The customer's financial statements are used at the initial "Is this even worth going through the motions?" stage. They're used to determine if it's worth going to the expense of performing actual due diligence, rather than just summarily rejecting the loan.

No. These had to be submitted each year. Not just when the loan was issued.

[bernard11]

The point being, no doubt, that the loan terms included a number of covenants which, if violated would put the loan in default, and the bank wanted to check that the covenants were being met.

Deutsche Bank usually required Trump to sign a personal guarantee for his company's loans, and so would check his personal finances to see if his guarantee was meaningful.

It's not clear whether they ignored the statements, which would be strange, or simply took them as a starting point and marked the values down so as to be cautious about accepting the guarantee.

[Brett Bellmore]

"or simply took them as a starting point and marked the values down so as to be cautious about accepting the guarantee."

Exactly what they did. In 2013, the bank’s underwriters adjusted Trump’s net worth by about 50% from more than $4 billion to roughly $2.65 billion.

[bernard11]

But if you take them as your starting point, then overstating them still benefits the borrower unless the bank does a completely fresh valuation, and if they are going to do that, what is gained by the overstatement?

[David Nieporent]

bookkeeper_joe showing that legal knowledge yet again. (1) Reliance was not an element at all, so nobody had to believe that to find that he violated the law; (2) there was no such testimony.

What's "absurd" is thinking that the bank not only required Trump to supply financial statements when he was applying for the loan, but then required him to supply updated ones every single year, if they actually didn't care about those statements.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, David, there actually was testimony by the bank that they hadn't relied on Trump's valuation, but instead had adjusted it downward substantially after their own review.

Deutsche Bank official says large changes to net worth like Trump’s isn’t unusual

Essentially the judge decided that he didn't care if they'd done due diligence, and had regarded the difference in valuations as routine.

And, as I said, last I heard, the appeals court wasn't too enthusiastic about the DA's position.

[Magister]

This ignores the testimony of Nicholas Haigh, who said the opposite. A retired bank official has less incentive to misrepresent what the bank did than a current employee who has a vested interest in protecting the bank's reputation.

[Michael Ejercito]

What did Nicholas Hugh testify to?

[Magister]

You could look it up, if you spelled the name correctly.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-letitia-james-fraud-new-york-364d1052f98816121000c26dc66f3878

[David Nieporent]

No, David, there actually was testimony by the bank that they hadn't relied on Trump's valuation, but instead had adjusted it downward substantially after their own review.

"We review things applicants submit and apply our own methods to interpret them rather than automatically accepting them at face value" != "We don't care what they submit; we ignore it."

Note that his testimony was actually, "We know that these sorts of personal financial statements are just estimates, and we account for that," whereas in Trump's case they were conscious lies, not estimates. He had appraisals that contradicted him and told the bank he didn't.

Essentially the judge decided that he didn't care if they'd done due diligence,

That's correct. As I said, reliance is not an element. And there's no "no default, no foul" rule allowing one to lie to a bank to obtain money.

[not guilty]

What "DA" before the appellate court do you refer to. Brett?

[Joe_dallas]

D-dishonest N

No bank is going to make a $1m plus loan without doing some level of due diligence. The risk officer's testimoney was BS. Liar DN knows that.

[David Nieporent]

Joe, you prepare tax returns for grandmothers who sell arts and crafts out of their garage. You're — as always — entirely out of your depth.

[Joe_dallas]

DN - you are digging your hole deeper.

Your BS is BS - your comment shows that you are flat out lying - Ethics issue perhaps

David Nieporent 31 minutes ago
" (1) Reliance was not an element at all, so nobody had to believe that to find that he violated the law; (2) there was no such testimony."

DN shows his high propensity to lie
Both statements are false
DN knows both statements are false

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 31 minutes ago
" (1) Reliance was not an element at all, so nobody had to believe that to find that he violated the law; (2) there was no such testimony."

DN shows his high propensity to lie
Both statements are false
DN knows both statements are false

[David Nieporent]

bookkeeper_joe should go back to claiming that he knows more than climatologists about climate, epidemiologists about epidemics, virologists about viruses, and that Sotomayor misrepresented the holding of a case whose holding she never even discussed. But he shouldn't try to tell actual lawyers about law.

Reliance is an element of common law fraud. It is not an element of Executive Law 63(12). (Neither is intent to deceive, for that matter.) See, e.g., People v. The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, 137 A.D.3d 409, 417 (1st Dept. 2016)(“fraud under § 63(12) may be established without proof of scienter or reliance”)(citing People v American Motor Club, 179 AD2d 277, 283 (1st Dept 1992), appeal dismissed by 80 NY2d 893 (1992)); see also People v. Allen, 198 A.D.3d 531, 533 (1st Dept. 2021); People v. World Interactive Gaming Corp., 714 N.Y.S.2d 844, 848 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999).

[Don Nico]

"bookkeeper_joe should go back to claiming that he knows more "
David, your name-calling only emphasizes that you are a much of a know-it-all as any other commenter.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Reliance is an element of common law fraud. It is not an element of Executive Law 63(12). (Neither is intent to deceive, for that matter.) "

Seems like a libertarian would oppose such a law.

but Trump!

[David Nieporent]

Weird how the fact that bookkeeper_joe's posts never consist of anything but "That's a distortion/dishonest/etc.," with no facts or substance doesn't occasion a response from Don Nico.

[Joe_dallas]

Weird how DN complains about someone highlighting his distortions and dishonesty

Perhaps being a little more honest would allieviate the frequent mentions of his distortions/deflections, etc

[SRG2]

Simply not credible

Not true. Is a risk officer going to admit, even in court, that the bank accepted the valuation of a deceitful; client?

[Joe_dallas]

The risk officer's testimony was simply not credible. No bank is going to rely on personal financial statements without doing an appropriate level of due diligence. The risk officer's version is not how it works in the real world.

Your willingness to believe his testimony along with all the other leftist repeating talking points shows how gullible you are.

[Malika the Maiz]

What were the Lizard People holding over him to get him to make this testimony is the real question!

[David Nieporent]

What were the Lizard People holding over him to get him to make this testimony is the real question!

He was being blackmailed by Jeffrey Epstein!

[SRG2]

You've never worked on the Street, evidently.

[Joe_dallas]

SRG2 28 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You've never worked on the Street, evidently.

Quite frankly _ yes
Also have several clients in the field.
Everyone with knowledge of the field knows the bank did not rely on those financial statements, at least not anywhere near what the leftist talking points claim.

[John F. Carr]

The federal rules require separate findings of fact in a civil bench trial. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(1).

[Commenter_XY]

Tell me a little more about 'leeway'. I am genuinely curious. What can you do at a bench trial vis a vis procedure that you cannot do with a jury trial.

[not guilty]

There is a lesser "margin of error" in a jury trial. If there is not a danger of arguably inadmissible evidence tainting a jury and risking the necessity of a mistrial, a judge may be more likely to admit evidence in a close call and give it what weight he thinks it deserves. If upon further reflection the judge has second thoughts, he can always say that he did not rely on the questionable evidence in reaching his decision.

If mistakenly admitted evidence prejudices a party's rights before a jury, however, that necessitates a mistrial, starting over before a new jury. If that occurs well into the trial, that could create significant delay, which wastes judicial resources.

[Riva]

Yeah, NG, what could it be? Could it be that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) bars lower courts from enjoining enforcement of the INA against classes—it only permits challenges in individual proceedings? Could it be that claims arising from removal proceedings must go through an appellate petition under § 1252(g)—not a district court? Could it be the plaintiffs' lack Art. III standing because their allegations are speculative and broad not being linked to any actual harm to any identifiable member or enforcement plan? Could it be that the plaintiffs' vague facial challenges to the President's Executive Orders are meritless because the internal directives do not lack any plainly legitimate sweep.

Or could it be that you, NG, simply reflexively oppose the Trump Administration simply because it is the Trump Administration?

[not guilty]

Judge Young dealt with all of that in his April 29, 2025 order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282460/gov.uscourts.mad.282460.73.0_2.pdf

Read it. As the Court wrote:

The right of free speech enshrined in the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment to the Constitution “[a]s a general matter, . . . means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468 (2010). It “is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, . . . in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests,” and “safeguards an individual’s right to participate in the public debate through political expression and political association.” McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185, 203 (2014) (quoting >i>Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24 (1971)). Indeed, “[p]olitical speech is the primary object of First Amendment protection and the lifeblood of a self-governing people.”

(Alterations in original.)

[Riva]

You may or may not have noticed but there is rather a surplus these days of federal court judges abusing their authority. Sometimes district courts even continue to abuse their authority with bad faith arguments after the S.Ct. stays their improperly issued preliminary injunctions.

[Riva]

And, just a minor point, nothing in the language you quote supports plaintiffs' facial challenge.

[David Nieporent]

Could it be that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) bars lower courts from enjoining enforcement of the INA against classes

It cannot be that, no, because this isn't a class action in the first place. (The only mention of "class" in the complaint is class-as-in-classroom.)

[Riva]

You probably don't realize it (because you're an idiot troll) but you're actually proving my point. The law does not allow for class relief but this is essentially what the plaintiffs are requesting. As noted by the government:

Plaintiffs ask this Court to “enjoin” Defendants from taking any action to “arrest, detain, and deport” any “noncitizen students and faculty” pursuant to the alleged “ideological deportation
policy.” PI Mot. at 1. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin certain enforcement actions against a class of people—all noncitizen students and faculty across the country. That sort of sprawling relief is squarely barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1)."

As noted before, I understand the President's critics are invariably bastards, but do they have to be such stupid bastards?

[not guilty]

Lawyers for the Trump administration are not a reliable source of information. There is no substitute for original source materials.

The relief sought by the Plaintiffs is their request that the Court:

A. Declare that the ideological-deportation policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the APA, and set the policy aside.
B. Enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing the ideological-deportation policy—including, without limitation, through investigation, surveillance, arrest, detention, deportation, or any other adverse action.
C. Declare that Defendants’ threats to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoints violates the First Amendment, and enjoin Defendants from continuing to make those threats.
D. To the extent Defendants rely on the security and related grounds of inadmissibility, including the endorse and espouse and foreign policy provisions, as the basis for carrying out the policy, declare that those provisions violate the First and Fifth Amendments as applied, and enjoin Defendants from applying those provisions.
E. Award Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
F. Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The District Court after analyzing 8 U.S.C. § 1252 at length, denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss based on § 1252(f) without prejudice, subject to renewal as to the issue of authorized remedies if -- and only if -- liability is first established. The Court denied the motion to dismiss based on § 1252(g) because the Plaintiffs’ claims based upon the ideological-deportation policy are not brought "by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter" within the meaning of the statute.

[Riva]

There is of course, no agency "policy." The "policy" is a fabrication by the plaintiffs and you have just reiterated that the plaintiffs improperly seek to enjoin certain enforcement actions against a class of people—all noncitizen students and faculty across the country. As noted by the government:

Plaintiffs bring a First Amendment challenge to a “policy” of their own creation. They do not try to locate this program in any statute, regulation, rule, or directive. They do not allege that it is written down anywhere. And they do not even try to identify its specific terms and substance. That is all unsurprising, because no such policy exists. Plaintiffs nonetheless demand that this Court broadly pass on its legality, on the rationale that this “policy” might be applied in the future against third parties in a manner that may have downstream effects on Plaintiffs or their members. None of that is the stuff of an Article III case or controversy.

[not guilty]

Riva, have you read Judge Young's April 29, 2025 order? Yes or no?

[Riva]

NG, have you read any of my responses?

[not guilty]

Yes, I have. I find them unpersuasive.

Have you read Judge Young's April 29, 2025 order? Yes or no?

It won't break your keyboard to give a straightforward answer.

[Riva]

I find your responses unpersuasive. I guess you didn't understand. And I have no inclination to instruct you further.

[not guilty]

Still running like Usain Bolt away from giving a straight answer, Riva?

[Poxigah146]

Anyone who thinks the 1st Amendment should protect non-citizens is a traitor, plain and simple.

[David Nieporent]

The 1st Amendment says "no law," not "no law relating to citizens."

[Brett Bellmore]

The Constitution says a lot of things that the judiciary don't care about.

[Magister]

Yes, we've observed that about the partisan Supreme Court.

[Nelson]

Or someone who believes in the Constitution. Since, you know, it doesn’t differentiate between citizens and non-citizens.

[Poxigah146]

Actually, it does. Read the preamble. "We the people of the United States...in order to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." It doesn't say "in order to secure the blessings of liberty for every squatter migrant who invades the United States."

[Nelson]

The preamble, which present who is making this Constitution and why, doesn’t say anything about the various enumerated (and unenumerated) rights. The Amendments, which in clear language protects those rights to all people, not just citizens, do.

Citizens have the exact same rights as non-citizens. That’s because the Constitution is based on the idea that humans have rights by virtue of being living, breathing humans and that government can’t take those away (inalienable rights) without due process of law.

This is what is known as a principle, where you support something that is true even if it stands against your personal feelings because the principle is bigger than you are and forms the foundation of society. We are a nation of laws and most of us want to protect that foundational ideal, not sacrifice it to every populist grievance and whiny bitch who doesn’t like that equal treatment under the law means equal treatment.

[Poxigah146]

The only principle you support is importing every destructive brown person who wants to come to America, because you are a racist who hates whites.

[Nelson]

I support the Constitution and individual rights. There are times when what *is* has frustrated me because I don’t think it’s what *should be*, but since I have principles, unlike fantasists like you, I support the principle over my preferred outcome.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Every accusation is an admission.

[NvEric]

You are right that all humans have rights. And, the rights of our system listed and unenumerated too, should, and must, be universal.

Each person everywhere must struggle to obtain the fullest potential of their existence, and through mutual principles despite laws to the contrary.

To "speak or write in favor of Palestinian rights" is not a problem.
Going further to advocate, or use, violence may be a problem for anyone, even a citizen. The problems of "Palestinians" and their struggle will not be solved with violence as violence never solves anything. And, by solve, I mean forever finished. Violence only delays a solution.

[William of Brooklyn]

Citizens do NOT have the exact same rights as non-citizens. I'll just mention one example, but there are many: the right to vote.

[Nelson]

Rights are universal. Various obligations and privileges are different for citizens and non-citizens (like jury duty or suffrage), but rights, both enumerated and unenumerated, belong to every person, not just citizens.

[Commenter_XY]

This is a false statement = Citizens have the exact same rights as non-citizens.

[not guilty]

Certainly there are differences between the rights of citizens and those of non-citizens. But the First Amendment rights of citizens to speak, write and print and those of resident aliens are not among those differences.

[Josh R]

As it relates to deportation, it is not settled law.

[Nelson]

Good point. I guess you can technically separate out the “rights” that citizens have (which could also be called privileges of citizenship) from natural or human rights.

[not guilty]

Poxigah146, the Preamble makes no reference whatsoever to citizenship.

As the Supreme Court opined in Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding the Sir John Franklin, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953), "It is well established that if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and remains physically present there, he is a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. He may not be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Court there noted
:

'* * * The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all 'persons' and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority.' Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 1455, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (concurring opinion).

344 U.S. at 596 n.5.

[Poxigah146]

I don't give a fuck about bullshit case law. I'm talking about what the founders thought.

[Nelson]

And you are wrong about that, too.

[minus the clever name]

Not guilty is wrong by all counts, incl law

Says the Federalist (2)
" one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side"

Not guilty would have been killed by either Loyalists or Patriots for not declaring his allegiance. .And how surprised he would be 🙂

[Nelson]

I guess I missed the part where the Federalist Papers became a legal foundation equal to the Constitution.

I believe there are numerous ideas in the Federalist Papers that weren’t included in the Constitution. Which is why the Federalist Papers are historical records, not legal foundation.

[Michael Ejercito]

But see Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952)

[not guilty]

At the time Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952), was decided, membership in the Communist Party was regarded as being outside the ambit of First Amendment protection. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 516 (1951) (plurality).

[David Nieporent]

Again: Harisiades v. Shaughnessy did not distinguish between the 1A rights of citizens and non-citizens.

[John 4]

Throwing around words like “traitor,” yet you have no idea of what you write. If you love the country so much, maybe do even a modicum of research before you starting decrying who its enemies are.

[Nelson]

He’s one of Rob Misek’s fellow travelers. His answer would be “non-whites and the Jews”. What a lovely fellow, eh?

[not guilty]

"Anyone who thinks the 1st Amendment should protect non-citizens is a traitor, plain and simple."

Think so, Poxigah146? The founders did not.

The Constitution mentions three specific criminal acts: treason, counterfeiting and bribery. Having recently thrown off a tyrannical colonial government, the founders were sensitive as to what should or should not be punishable as treason. That is why Article III, § 3 cabins the definition thereof:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Anyone who can read thoughtcrime into that definition is either a knave or an illiterate fool.

[Bob from Ohio]

"adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"

seems to fit

[not guilty]

See what I mean?

[Nelson]

Only if you shove that square peg really, really hard.

[John F. Carr]

This is the docket for the case:

American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass., 1:25-cv-10685) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69784731/american-association-of-university-professors-v-rubio/

[Michael Ejercito]

If I told you that the U.S. deported a permanent resident aline for past membership in the Communist Party, would you believe me?

[Josh R]

My guess is it has, but only because the person lied about it on their application.

[Nelson]

Would it surprise me that people are way too freaked out about Communists? No, not at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

People aren't freaked out enough about Communists, relative to Nazis; The communists are just as bad, and show more staying power.

[Nelson]

Communists are deluded fools who will never gain traction because their beliefs are proven failures. I’m more worried about paleoconservatives and supply-side economics, both of which have an equivalent level of failure, but both of which enjoy power and prestige in the Trump Administration.

Communism is a joke, as are communists. They aren’t worth wasting effort on.

[Commenter_XY]

This is true also:

Socialism is a joke, as are Socialists. They aren’t worth wasting effort on.

[Nelson]

Agreed. Capitalism has nothing to fear from socialism/communism. It’s like an NFL offensive lineman fearing a Pop Warner defensive lineman. One is robust, powerful, and agile, one is slow, weak, and fragile.

[not guilty]

Brett, free speech destroyed the Communist Party as a viable political entity in the United States.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the Nazi party never was a viable political entity in the US, so even here they showed more staying power.

But see how many admitted fascists vs communists you'll find in academia.

[Nelson]

The various neo-Nazi parties were as politically viable as the Communists. And they have shown remarkable staying power. Since the Nazi Party first rose in Germany, there has been a neo-Nazi party in America. Just like Communists.

That doesn’t make either relevant or viable.

[ReaderY]

I would think this could be decided as a matter of law. It’s pretty clear that permanent residents get protections, mere visa holders don’t.

I don’t see how the sort of facts one acquires in a bench trial would change this. It’s not for courts to decide what is or isn’t in the interests of the United States. Either way, the facts don’t matter. If it is protected by the First Amendment, there’s nothing to decide factually. And if it isn’t protected by the First Amendment, there’s nothing to decide factually.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Perhaps Somin will find this an opportune moment to condemn flood-protective zoning laws as an impediment to low-cost home ownership.

[minus the clever name]

To joke about the death of children is funny only to a certain kind of person

[Don Nico]

I don't think that Stephen meant it to be a joke, but rather a clear message about how Somin's all too frequent broken record is indiscriminate.

[minus the clever name]

Then you are saying Stephen can't write and you can't say it's a clear message. you sound like Biden's press secretary : Biden's clear message is ....... 🙂

[Don Nico]

don't be an ass.
The only one who thought it was a joke was you.

[minus the clever name]

Don knows what I think...what's the name for that 😉

[AmosArch]

Ruh Roh....looks like Mexicans don't like open borders and foreigners too much either.

https://youtu.be/8hNwUXnycm0?feature=shared

Is Ilya or a significant portion of the left establishment at the very least going to try to be intellectually self consistent and write their usual breathless diatribes in condemnation of this naked bigotry and xenophobia or are they going to somehow bend over backward to justify it or just ignore it altogether?

Find out same Volokh Time Same Volokh Channel!

PS: My money is on C for Mr. Somin and a mix of B-C for other leftists with C more for establishment figures and organizations and B for the real crazies on social media.

[Malika the Maiz]

Somin is an US citizen, and US citizens don’t tend to focus much on Mexican policies like they do US ones.

[David Nieporent]

That isn't even about policies! It's random people complaining about policies that he does like!

[AmosArch]

It's literally about us citizens bub. Or I guess we shouldn't care about Abrego Garcia either and Mr Somin should not have wasted so much time whining about him. That case doesn't even involve us citizens.

[Sarcastr0]

Seriously you can't think of a principled reason why Prof. Somin might post more about American policy than Mexican policy?

[AmosArch]

I could but not very likely ones in Mr. Somin's case. If he and his compatriots were truly interested in an objective nonideological solution on the immigration crisis, stuff like this would be prime events to study and comment on because they point to more universal factors behind the issue and more balanced solutions other than America Bad. Trump Bad. Complete and unfettered open borders ....for the US and maybe other Western prosperous countries but not necessarily others....and defunded ICE good.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither you nor Prof. Somin are interested in anything nonideological.

He's a libertarian.
You're an angry strawman constructor.

Prof. Somin criticized Biden and Obama plenty. You just never noticed or cared.

[AmosArch]

In his 'criticisms' of Biden he usually positively slobbers over him in comparison and often just uses the posts as another opportunity to bash trump. Quite balanced indeed.

[Sarcastr0]

Vibes sure look unfair!

[Sarcastr0]

Same nonsense as feminists aren't real if they don't condemn ISIS.

I'm sure it feels like a real argument if you want it enough, but to folks on the outside it looks like seeing Prof. Somin behind every tree.

BTW I clicked on the link so you don't have to:
"Mexico City devolves into chaos as citizens protest influx of migrants - Sky News Australia."
It's about a violent protest against gentrification, which brings up plenty of interesting issues, just not the one Amos is selling it for.

[LexAquilia]

Would you please bless us with the list of official and approved interesting issues we are allowed to ponder?

I sure wish to keep in your good graces. It's so important.

[AmosArch]

It's about a violent protest against gentrification
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LMAO....yeah all the MSM outlets are trying this non sequitur too. But I have to ask. When you get to the point where you're spraying 'Kill a Gringo' on to the wall. What exactly is the difference? One you hate the dirty foreigner because you can't buy stuff to live in x anymore because its too expensive because of dirty foreigners supposedly and the other you hate the dirty foreigner because you can't walk down the street without getting shivved and you can't buy stuff to live in x place anymore because you lost your job to dirty foreigners supposedly.

[darkknight9]

My security guard son just sent me the following message.

I may have made a mistake. I mentioned it as a joke but now the building manager did it. She rented out the community room for a "psychotic friends network barbecue" in hopes of getting one quiet weekend without a party.

[Magister]

I suspect that should have been "psychic friends network barbecue". Psychotics, whether friends or not, would probably not make for a quiet weekend.

[darkknight9]

They were commiserating over prior raucous parties. The psychotic part is a reference to an old pc game. One that Justices Kagan and Breyer played as part of a 1st amendment case in 2011! 🙂 Postal 2.

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxNmJHjZhJItQtq6rpj3FCXbH9JNYXetLL

#RunningWithScissors

[Magister]

So the hope was for a quieter party? Or for no party as originally said?

[darkknight9]

For no party. 🙂

[Magister]

The "psychic friends network party" that nobody shows up to because they don't have actual psychic powers is a joke; the "psychotic friends network party" would be more likely to attract people than a boring name; if you're just going to have an unannounced party so nobody shows up, a bland name would probably work better as nobody would be curious or surprised at the low attendance.

[Kazinski]

I saw in the news this week that this years deficit is projected at 1.9t an increase of 100 billion over the last fiscal year. I was a little surprised at that since I have been seeing lots of news stories about devastating cuts, so I decided to look a little closer. The data is only available through May, so I looked at OCT 24, the start of the fiscal year through May 2025, and compared it by month to the last fiscal year.

2024 Fiscal Year 2025 Fiscal Year Diff
Oct _ 66,564 _257,450 _ 190,886
Nov _ 314,012 _366,763 _52,751
Dec _ 129,354 _86,732 _-42,622
Jan _ 21,930 _128,640 _106,710
Biden 4 Months +307,725,000,000 increase in the deficit.

Feb _ 296,275 _ 307,017 _10,742
Mar _ 236,556 _160,530 _-76,026
Apr _-209,529 _-258,400 _-48,871
May _347,131 _316,004 _-31,127

Trump 4 months netted a -145,282,000,000 decrease in the deficit.

So all of the increase in the 2025 deficit is due to the Biden Administration blowing out the deficit by 307 billion more than it was in the first 4 months of fiscal year 2024.

Trump has been able to mitigate that by about 50%, but even if he can keep the current pace for the next 4 months, best case it will only match last years deficit.

the dara is linked here https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/mts/

[AmosArch]

Thats what confused me. On the one hand they're running stories crying about how Trump/DOGE is slashing things to the bone and laying off billions of now destitute people and thousands of programs to save starving children in Africa and then they turn around and run stories about how those DOGE goofballs aren't able to cut anything and lets all have a laugh at how ineffective they are.

[Martinned]

Those things are entirely consistent if you start from the assumption that Trump isn't intentionally killing 14 million people.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2jjpm7zv8o

Whether that's a reasonable assumption is something you're entitled to disagree with, of course.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned - the study projecting 14 million deaths from cuts to usaid is a joke. Not surprising you believe it.

[Martinned]

If you think a casualty count bigger than World War I is funny, that makes one of us.

[Joe_dallas]

The study is a joke - But you fail to recognize the crap because you are far too woke to do even rudimary level of critical thinking

[Malika the Maiz]

Levels. Try rudimentary levels of spelling.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe's checked the numbers and found them woke.

Is this analysis from your deep lay-expertise and reserves of common sense?

[minus the clever name]

But , Martin, are you aware at all that you are upset at a projection but not an actuality !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"according to a Washington Post report, more Americans have died in car crashes since January 2000 than in both World Wars combined"

[Nelson]

So are all anti-abortionists. What’s your point?

[minus the clever name]

Nobody has any idea what you are saying.

[Nelson]

Anti-abortionists rely on the projection that a fertilized egg will one day become a real person to justify treating it like a person today.

Until viability, a fetus is a projection, not an actuality. Are you willing to apply your standard to both situations equally?

[minus the clever name]

But only crazy folks pick their assumptions to force consistency !!!
And considering the infinity of assumptions, NO, it is not just between Intentional killing or non-intentional killing. Two fallcaies in two sentences, you be a winner

[Sarcastr0]

DOGE cuts like crazy. They just cut so stupidly they don't save money.

[Frank Drackman]

List one thing they’ve “cut”
OK, Condoms for Gaza, they don’t need them, the Israelis have their own method of Birth Control

[Life of Brian]

Nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded.

[minus the clever name]

Readers, This person is trying to rip off the original sayer of this --- yes, he did not originate it. it was Yogi Berra and it was about a restaurant.

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
-- Oscar Wilde

[Frank Drackman]

and Yogi didn't say "Baseball is 90% 1/2 Mental"
it was Journeyman Outfielder for the Royals/Brewers/Expos 1972-1986 Jim Wohlford

[Stella Link's Ghost]

The way that I heard it was that Yogi said, "baseball is 90% mental -- the rest is in your head." Of course, Yogi also (allegedly) said that he didn't say half the things he said.

[Frank Drackman]

In Sparky Lyle's great "The Bronx Zoo" his memoir of the Yankee's 1978 Championship year he said Yogi couldn't have said all those things because he pretty much never said anything. Not as trend setting as Jim Bouton's "Ball Four" but funnier in my opinion, Sparky's favorite joke was to sit naked on another players Birthday Cake.

[Kazinski]

Somehow Trump has reduced the deficit by a 145 billion in just 4 months, not all of that is DOGE, some is tariffs, and non-DOGE cuts.

But it's still almost half a trillion a year.

In CBO speak its 4.35 trillion in deficit reduction.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure which press release you're uncritically believing here, but

1) Presidents don't set spending and taxing levels, so they're not going to reduce the deficit
2) DOGE claims they've caught tons of waste, but they've been caught lying or being laughably wrong over and over again.
3) You've had the CBO baseline fail explained to you again and again. Your continued inability to get it is on you now.

[Kazinski]

I looked at the data from the monthly treasury reports on the deficit, and did the math.

Trump spent a 145 billion less in his first four months in office than Biden did the same period the previous fiscal year.

Its written in English and ArabIc numbers above.

The Treasury issues a report every month on spending, revenues, deficit, borrowing, cash on hand etc. I didn't need a press release or to take someone else's word for it, I loaded in a spreadsheet.

And if you want to say I'm wrong look at the treasury report and tell me where I got it wrong.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I think they are being unfair to you, Kaz. Folks who rely on a degree from Autodidact You may be suspect. And that may cast them a notch below just-rando internet commenters, but they still have to be shown wrong, not just assumed wrong. Problem is, in your case, it's too much show-wrong work for the resources available. And the opposite of, "not-shown-wrong," is not, "right."

[Kazinski]

Don't worry about the unfairness Lathrop, I expect it, and somehow I will bear up.

I do worry about the mental stability who question published accounts of the public treasury, that someone with a 4th grade education could easily fact check in a minute or so because they don't like its results.

[Sarcastr0]

So a single point of comparison. That's very bad political science, much less economics.

It's also cut off from the actual driver of deficits, as I noted.

And you seem fully into embracing magical thinking about the next budget.

It doesn't take an expert to poke holes in your number.

[Kazinski]

Sarcastro, it's the official publication of accounts by the US Treasury for public consumption.

Take the tinfoil hat off.

Of you don't like what it says, that's too bad, its the official data released by the agency responsible for maintaining the data.

And its not political science its basic accounting. And its a compilation of actual data, not projections.

[Sarcastr0]

Says a lot that when I criticize what you're doing with the data, your response is: 'but the sourcing is good!'

[Kazinski]

Why didn't you just say that?

That's even more ridiculous, comparing periodic accounts to the prior period is as basic as financial analysis gets.

I spent more than 30 years writing financial reporting software for major oil companies and public utilities, and comparison to prior periods was essential.

I will bet your monthly utility bill shows monthly use on a 13 month graph so you can compare to the same month last year because that is how you compare data with seasonal effects.

[Sarcastr0]

My first 2 lines of the comment you replied to were both criticism of your method not your sourcing.

comparing periodic accounts to the prior period is as basic as financial analysis gets.
One data point is bad analysis.
Here, 2024 has economic stuff going on that is not the same as 2025 for reasons well beyond a President's specific actions!

Analogizing macroeconomics to microeconomics doesn't really burnish your credentials here either. I can track my own events; a nation's underlying economic state is so hard there's still foundational scholarship going on about it. (Micro gets hard too, though - I've been dipping into NBER hedonic model stuff and it gets complex quite fast)
You also went from 1 to 13 data points.

[Kazinski]

This is basic accounting, not micro or macro economics, you are just trying to muddy the waters. Sure the deficit affects a myriad of economic considerations, but calculating the deficit is plain old accounting. And conflating accounting with microeconomics (which I suppose is what you are doing, but is nonsensical) just illustrates you have no understanding of either.

Its 16 data points not one, 8 months this fiscal year compared to the first 8 months last fiscal year.

13 data points is an example from just about everyones utility bills, water, gas, and electric. Sometimes common examples can be useful to illustrate concepts, but I am not hopeful it can help you.

This kind of pedantic squirming is typical for you when you encounter data you can't refute but don't like, but its hard to gaslight it.

[Sarcastr0]

You're not doing basic accounting because you're making causal connections.

Your rollup of '145 billion' is one data point.

I'm not being pedantic, you're shooting from the hip on stuff you can't do that for.

[Kazinski]

Right, so in 3 more months (June deficit will be released end of this week), it will finally be appropriate to compare fiscal year 2024 to 2025, and compare it month to month to see where it deviated, but doing it now 3/4 of the way through the year is inappropriate and only one data point, after aggregation.

You are just incoherent.

And later this week, or early next week, I will update my accounting analysis, with one more data point.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you have a better source, Sarcastr0? Put up or STFU.

[Kazinski]

Sarcastro, see my reply to Bernard below on CBO 2025 deficit projections for 2025 v 2024.

Their projection matches my analysis almost exactly, 1.8t last year, 1.9t this year.

My 8 month delta calculation 307b from Biden and -145 billion from Trump = 1.962t with 4 months to go, and Trump averaging ~30 billion a month < 2024.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter - I am criticizing slapdash methodology, so I have no idea why you're asking for a source.

I mean, I kinda do - you want to cheerlead, but don't want to read.

[AmosArch]

They're not usually doing financial wizardry and forecasting DOGE cut x which would have saved 10x over time. No its more cry about how x cut is massive then turn around and laugh about how y cut is insignificant.

[jb]

Does the government run a surplus every April because of income tax payments? Or put another way: does the deficit work on a pure cash accrual basis?

It's kind of funny to see you pretending you care about the deficit, though, since you seemed to be cheerleading the OBBB last week.

[Kazinski]

Which is why you have to compare month to month, or year to year and not compare Jan to April.

As see above, plainly I compare Apr 24 to Apr 25 both of them had surpluses, Trump's surplus is larger with a net deficit reduction for April of 48,871 million.

And as I said I expect the OBBB to lead to lower deficits, through both higher growth and ending green energy subsidies, how ever those don't start phasing out until the end of September so we may see a bump in spending on those right before the end of the fiscal year.

[jb]

"And as I said I expect the OBBB to lead to lower deficits, through both higher growth"

LOL. This is some sort of conservative religious axiom at this point, despite the fact it never happens. Tax cuts may lead to more growth, but they never pay for themselves. And the incremental cuts in the OBBB are extremely stupid so they'll have even less of an effect then a normal across the board cut.

[bernard11]

I expect the OBBB to lead to lower deficits,

I don't.

[Kazinski]

Its already going down as a percentage of GDP, and may well go down a hair in nominal dollars:

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the 2025 federal budget deficit to be $1.9 trillion, which is 6.2% of the GDP, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. This is very similar to the 2024 deficit of $1.8 trillion (6.4% of GDP), according to the Bipartisan Policy Center."

[jb]

So your theory is that the OBBB is truly magical and made the deficit go down before it was even passed?

[Josh R]

Unless you can quantify what specific Trump policies led to a deficit reduction in Feb-May 2025 (relative to Feb-May 2024), I would assume all of the numbers for fiscal 2025 are Biden's to own.

[Kazinski]

Well that's not too hard, there has been over 40 billion in new tariff revenue, over the 8 billion monthly average in February.

Then:
"The Trump administration announced the termination of approximately 5,800 USAID multiyear contracts and grants, amounting to a cut of $54 billion."

Then there is the 8 billion recession package sent to Congress, those funds are currently impounded.

So that's over a hundred billion of the 145 billion right there.

Then there were 121,000 federal employee firings or layoffs announced, which doesn't include the 75,000 that accepted the buyout effective in September.

I think that is close enough to get us in the ballpark with just 2 minutes of research.

[Josh R]

According to your link (page 35 of the PDF), tariff revenues were about $46 billion for March through May, or about $22B above the baseline.

Terminations of contracts and grants, and recessions don't show up for a while, sometimes a very long while.

200,000 employees (likely to large a figure) making $200,000 a year in salary and benefits adds up to about $10 billion in 3 months.

[Kazinski]

USAID has need shut down and the programs remaining have been folded into the state department, so I think we can give credence to the 56 billion figure, and I remember a few of the court cases staying TRO's and preliminary injunctions requiring payments, because they had to be brought in the US Court of claims.

You aren't really claiming it was Biden's plan all along to spend 145 billion less Feb-may are you?

I think I have shown sufficient reductions with just a few examples, and there are others like refugee settlement assistance, which was over 2 billion in 2024, we know the federal government was issuing grants for migrant hotels in blue cities, that all ended.

I hope you aren't going to claim all the caterwauling about the damage Trump was doing to non-profits, and NPR, etc, was just bogus. I'd like to hope the cuts everyone was complaining about were real.

The data indicates it was real.

[Josh R]

Again, contracts are for the life of the contracts (they are multiyear, as you said).

Of course there wasn't a plan to have a smaller deficit in Feb-to-May. It could be the result of the timing of payments and revenue that happen to differ from 2024.

You have not shown sufficient examples for Trump to take credit for it. Be patient grasshopper. Fiscal 2026 will be the (first) test.

[Kazinski]

What's the duration of a cancelled contract?

You need to pay more attention, several upper courts, including the Supreme Court, ruled that after the contracts were cancelled the only remedy was filing suit in the Court of Claims, for monetary damages. The lower courts could not order the payments be continued, except in a single case for 2.8 billion, pending further hearings.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court has now ended Universal injunctions.

[Josh R]

Go to page 36 in your link. There is a line-item called "Agency for International Development." From Oct through Feb, an average of $1.1B was spent per month. In early March, Rubio announced most contracts were canceled. From Mar through May, an average of $1.0B was spent per month ($0.3B total) The reduction is from $1.3B to $0.8B per month ($2.0B total) if we compare Oct-Jan with Feb-May.

Either way, the $54B savings is spread out over multiple years because only a small portion of the contracts are spent in any one month. There is no way there can be anything close to $54B in savings in 3 or 4 months.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think that Tranny Thomas is a fraud, but not a fraud under contract law in that both UPenn and the NCAA knew that it had been born a he -- there was no fraud there.

And UPenn/NCAA contracted with Thomas to be an athlete on the Women's team (knowing he wasn't one) and promised him awards and accolades if he won. Which he did.

So why isn't it a breach of contract for them to be taken away now?
He didn't engage in fraud -- he told UPenn/NCAA exactly what he was.

[Kazinski]

What's the monetary value for getting your name on a trophy in an amateur athletic competition?

They aren't making him repay his scholarships.

[Malika the Maiz]

Ivy League schools don’t give athletic scholarships.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What is the monetary value of a college degree?
Not to mention that you can have a property interest in things that don't have a monetary value, eg college degrees.

There are a lot of trannies with a lot of money and he/she/it would make more money as a swim coach/trainer if he/she/it was a national champion.

[minus the clever name]

NO, if I walk up to you and claim to be a 150-year old Azerbaijan rock star, that is on you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not if we both know you were born in Peoria in 1976.

At least UPenn knew that the athlete had a penis.
They were getting complaints about it from teammates.

Heck, didn't UPenn have a MD perform physical exams on all of its athletes (I know that UMass does) -- wouldn't a competent MD kinda notice something different with this athlete?

We're not even talking due diligence here.....

[Nelson]

I sincerely doubt that UMass does anything of the sort. Examination by a university doctor seems like way too intrusive of a requirement to participate in college activities.

Do you have a link, or are you just “Dr. Ed-ing” again?

[minus the clever name]

That kind of reasoning would lead most people to see collusion I mean, 'she' looks a hell of a lot like a man

[Nelson]

So does your mom.

[Commenter_XY]

What is the likelihood former CIA Director Brennan will ever see a courtroom, let alone a jail cell? Close to zero, I bet.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/07/06/exclusive-john-brennan-may-face-perjury-issues-after-cia-director-ratcliffes-review-uncovers-russia-hoax-testimony-problems/

If there is no accountability, we will see more of this behavior.

[LexAquilia]

They assassinated a President and got away with it. They've been meddling in elections and subverting democracy since then (see Nixon).

[Malika the Maiz]

“They assassinated a President and got away with it.”

A high tech lynching!

[LexAquilia]

JFK wasn't lynched. He was shot several times from the front and the back.

[Frank Drackman]

As if you needed to display more evidence of your Stew-purity, are you Oliver Stone?

[Nelson]

I believe you are one of those who thinks the Holocaust didn’t happen, so your ability to separate fact from conspiracy theory is questionable.

[David Nieporent]

What is the likelihood former CIA Director Brennan will ever see a courtroom, let alone a jail cell? Close to zero, I bet.

1) Why don't you read a real news source? If you did, you wouldn't be so easily fooled.
2) As was pointed out last week when this report was discussed, Ratcliffe lied about what it showed, which was that there wasn't anything wrong with what was done.
3) There is zero chance, because statutes of limitations exist in the United States. Breitbart — in another example of its lack of reliability — failed to mention when this supposedly false testimony by Brennan occurred, so that people who only read their article wouldn't have known that the entire premise was a lie.

[Armchair]

1) The NY Post has also reported on this. Of course, you likely don't consider them a real news source either. All those contrary news sources..."not real".
3) Only if you don't consider Brennan's 2023 testimony before a Congressional Committee, where he extensively talked about the Steele dossier and referenced his previous testimony.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, the NY Post.
Right in the middle of the ideological scale, right Armchair?

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/12/thursday-open-thread-208/?comments=true#comment-10720138

[David Nieporent]

1) The NYP had a column about it, from Miranda Devine; that's not reporting. If they also had a news story, I haven't seen it so I don't know what it says.

2) Brennan's 2023 testimony — which was supposed to be about The Laptop™ — is here. Can you point to anything in that proven to be false by the Tradecraft Review, which literally says the opposite of Devine's claim that the assessment was "corrupt from the start"?

[Commenter_XY]

Is this truly believable?

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/07/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-client-list-trump-administration

Sorry, but this sicko was in the middle of too much crap with high level politicos (George Mitchell, Bill Richardson, Ehud Barak, and others) to be just a bystander. Director Patel is going to have to be a lot more persuasive. His ex-squeeze said he wasn't just a bystander and he was killed for what he had, and knew.

Not buying this one.

[Kazinski]

The FBI says no evidence, that doesn't mean nothing ever happened. Don't forget the original sweetheart no prosecution deal for Epstein was 2008, he had plenty of time to clean up all the evidence, the FBI didn't raid his Island until 2019.

There isn't much doubt the FBI was in sweep it under the rug mode in 2008, but Epstein would have been a fool to keep lists and videos after that.

[David Nieporent]

but Epstein would have been a fool to keep lists and videos after that.

But he did keep videos. Tens of thousands of hours of them. They just don't show what the nuts wanted them to show. And if he were going to keep incriminating videos — which he did — why would he get rid of the ones that he could use to protect himself?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, this will set the MAGA idealogues against the Trump tools.

Not much daylight between them, so the chaos won't last long, but we should get some quotes out of it.

[LexAquilia]

The MAGA idealogues understand that the US Government is USG, but ZOG and we've long since been captured.

Epstein got buried because it was a MOSSAD op, and Israel is the only country we allow to attack us, steal and sell our secrets to our enemies, undermine our sovereignty, and subvert our society.

90% of Congress have Israeli flags next to American ones in their offices.

[Frank Drackman]

“ZOG”???
1993 called and wants its acronym back,
And stealing from Private Francis
“You just made the list!”

Frank

[LexAquilia]

Get fucked, Israeli Firster.

[Frank Drackman]

Ewww……Good One!
And better a “Firster” than a Fister, seriously, your Anal Sphincters gotta be looser than Nancy Mace’s (redacted)
Now as your Overlord, help my Mexicans load that Sod! Chop Chop!

[thenotoriousrbg]

I love watching the racists fight each other. it's so wholesome.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OR the Mossad realized that he was a nut and a loose cannon they had to get rid of.

[Malika the Maiz]

Well, we all know what the President’s First Buddy said was in the Epstein files.

[jb]

Pretty convenient that right after Elon said that Trump is in the files they decide there are no files. (And this despite Bondi assuring us we'd see them earlier in the year.)

[LexAquilia]

No one but Blue-Anon types believe the corrupt hacks under the Obama or Biden admins kept a Trump/Epstein illicit relationship secret only for a Trump admin to come along and bury it.

That's what retards who don't think good think.

[minus the clever name]

That is a silly conclusion. IF Trump even knew he might be in the files then there would have been no announcement at all!!!!

[SRG2]

Didn't Bondi say that the list was sitting on her desk?

[David Nieporent]

Is this truly believable?

Yes. In fact, one would have to have an incredibly low IQ to think otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

So far Commenter and Armchair on the MAGA delusional side.
Kaz is on the Trump true believer side.

I leave Frank and TheNamedAntisemite as an exercise for the reader.

[Commenter_XY]

Ghislane Maxwell was convicted of what?

Ah yes, sex trafficking of females. But Epstein didn't know about any of that, amirite?

Are you normally this obtuse, or are you working especially hard at it today?

[David Nieporent]

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of procuring girls for Jeffrey Epstein, not for any imaginary "clients." Weird that you don't know this, given that her trial was public.

[SRG2]

We can be sure, I think, that if such a list existed, it did not exculpate Trump. Either there is no list or the list inculpates Trump.

[Martinned]

This mess in the UK might have some elements that sound familiar to my American friends:

- On 23 June the Secretary of State decided to designate an organisation called "Palestine Action" as a terrorist organisation on the grounds that, "“Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), “Five Eyes” allies and the UK defence enterprise".

- On 2 and 3 July, the necessary Order was laid before Parliament. (In the UK the government can't just do things like this on its own, although the odds of Parliament vetoing an order like this are slim to none.)

- On 4 July in the afternoon the High Court held a hearing on the application for judicial review by the founder of Palestine Action.

- On 4 July at 5.30 pm the High Court refused the application in a written order.

- On 4 July at 7.35 pm the applicant submitted written grounds for appeal at the Court of Appeal.

- On 4 July at 08.05 pm the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing for an hour.

- On 4 July at 10.25 pm the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment refusing relief.

- On 5 July 29 people were arrested on terrorism offences relating to Palestine Action. I gather that they are suspected of inviting support for Palestine Action, expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of Palestine Action while being reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support it, arranging a meeting while knowing that it is to support Palestine Action and/or addressing a meeting with the purpose of encouraging support for Palestine Action, all of which are (obviously) terrorism.

The designation decision seems plausible to me, given the facts stated, but the infringement of free speech is obviously absurd. In the pictures the protestors are shown holding signs that say: "I oppose genocide | I support Palestine action". Unless they did a hell of a lot more than that, they shouldn't have been arrested, much less arrested for crimes that carry up to 14 years in prison.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/terror-arrests

[Kazinski]

So you don't think an organization which is organizing criminal activity can be sanctioned by the government?

Not only were members vandalizing government and private property, but the organization was taking credit for it.

Well ok then, lets give them full credit for knowingly breaking the law. And damaging military aircraft at an airbase seem like serious charges way beyond free speech.

https://apnews.com/article/raf-brize-norton-palestine-action-planes-8467a20bcd088e24c3fe061852b33ba2

[Martinned]

What part of "the designation decision seems plausible to me" do you not understand?

[Kazinski]

But you go on to say "but the infringement of free speech is obviously absurd. "

That's not all they were arrested for:

"LONDON (AP) — Four pro-Palestinian protesters were held in custody Thursday after their first appearance in a London court on charges they damaged two Royal Air Force planes with red paint and crowbars.

The charges came after the group Palestine Action said its members entered the RAF base in Brize Norton on June 20 and spray painted the engines of two Voyager jets used for air-to-air refueling. They also damaged the jets with crowbars, according to the group, which released video footage of the incident.

The vandalism caused about 7 million pounds ($9.5 million) of damage, police said."

So you had members of an organization involved in a conspiracy to break the law, obviously some will be found more culpable than others, but they are all part of the conspiracy.

[Martinned]

And nothing in my comment suggests that I mind people being arrested for such things.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sure, it's illegal, but it's not "terrorism". At least, not yet.

They seem to have faded away now, but several years ago the UK was plagued by "Extinction Rebellion", another one of these "direct action" leftist groups which seem to go in and out of fashion on a regular basis.

"XR" was notable in that it had taken the time to articulate its "demands", one of which was infamously to replace representative democracy with a new kind of legislative/executive decisionmaking--ostensibly because the current system was "broken" and thus incapable of saving the planet.

Also (comically) notable was the official XR symbol, which bore an uncanny resemblance to the NAZI swastika flag. (Those two things earned it my "XRzi" moniker, which, sadly, like "fetch", never caught on...)

But, like various other climate-related "action" groups, from Greenpeace on, the XRzis engaged in deliberately unlawful and illegal activities in a misguided attempt to sway public opinion. The UK government rightfully cracked down on XR, but never designated it a "terrorist organisation", because it wasn't. It engaged in "free speech" and specifically "non-violent" direct protests which were intentionally disruptive (and did not have the desired effect of turning the population towards it), but as far as I'm aware, it did not cross the line into terrorism.

Palestine Action appears to be a similar kind of "direct action" protest group which the UK government has unusually decided to declare a terrorist organization--but they appear to have omitted to cite any actual terrorist activities to justify their departure from past government practices. PA's most dangerous weapon appears to be the ubiquitous can of red spray paint...

[Michael P]

ObviouslySpam thinks crowbars are spray paint cans. And accuses other people of being morons. Sad!

[David Nieporent]

So you had members of an organization involved in a conspiracy to break the law, obviously some will be found more culpable than others, but they are all part of the conspiracy.

You apparently fail (as the British government does) to distinguish between engaging in criminal acts and expressing support for others engaging in criminal acts.

[Martinned]

Tbf, the problem starts with the statute, which also doesn't properly make that distinction.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems caterwauling about the tyranny over the pond stops pretty quick with some people.

Yeah, this sucks.
Doesn't make the UK an authoritarian hellscape as some keep saying, as anyone who lives there can tell you.
But while the org may be bad, this is going after people for their association, without individualized determinations of guilt.

[Michael P]

Lots of people have been pointing out that the modern UK has a general and blatant disregard for freedom of speech.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Those people are also morons.

[Martinned]

True. Then again, electing a former human rights lawyer (and DPP) as prime minister hasn't improved things as much as we all hoped it would.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's not like there was much choice, was there? He was the leader of the Labour Party, which made him electable (unlike Corbyn), but although a fairly decent fella, he obviously lacks any kind of charisma.

[Frank Drackman]

He’s not a great example of the NHS’s outstanding Dental care

[minus the clever name]

Why have such a foolish hope to begin with !!!!!

Human rights lawyers have no more claim to moral high tone than a
tax lawyer. After all, you could be defending the right to kill babies for Chinese, or female gendercide for Indians, or homosexual promiscuity for some rich African..
https://humanrights.catholic.edu/

[Sarcastr0]

It's all white nationalists trying to launder their bullshit through 'defending free speech.'

[Bwaaah]

Yeah...white supremacy and systemic racism.

Fair-minded people understand and emphasize the importance of expressions of sympathy for Hamas, and condemnation of the Nazi Zionists.

I'm with you, Sarc.

[David Nieporent]

Lots of people have been pointing out that the modern UK has a general and blatant disregard for freedom of speech.

Yes, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of overlap between those people and the ones concerned about this.

[not guilty]

Will Elon Musk become a thorn in Donald Trump's side in a manner similar to what Ross Perot was to George H. W. Bush? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/us/politics/elon-musk-third-party.html

I doubt it. Bush I was running for re-election in 1992, and unlike Perot, Musk cannot run for President himself.

[Brett Bellmore]

If he moved fast, he could hurt the GOP in the midterms, with results he'd like even worse than the GOP continuing to control Congress. It really depends on whether that's his objective or not.

I don't think his new party is going to go anywhere, frankly. The legal landscape is a lot more hostile to third parties now than it was when Perot created his "Reform party" to run for President, and even back then he only got on the ballot in most states on account of having the rules waived so that he could be a spoiler.

He'd have been a lot better off trying to take over the GOP from inside. But I don't think he could do that, either, he's actually got some views on things like gun control that are toxic on the right.

[Armchair]

We'll see. I'm not opposed to a third party, and while Musk can't run, he can fund it rather well. Funding is where most 3rd parties falter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes and no. Where most 3rd parties falter is that they have to spend enormously more up front just to get onto the ballot than the major parties do; Typically a minor filing fee that's waived if they forget for the majors, a hugely expensive signature drive for the minor parties.

It's rather like having to run a marathon to arrive at the starting line for another marathon just as the starter pistol fires: Third parties even if they make it onto the ballot arrive already exhausted at the start of the campaign, with their donors already tapped out.

You then face being systematically excluded from campaign coverage, debates, and polling. Why, for instance, are the Presidential debates not still being conducted by the League of Women Voters, who everybody agreed was doing a bang-up job of running them? Because one year they dared to include a third party candidate. So the major parties created a bipartisan commission to run them, and boycott any debates third party candidates are invited to.

And you've heard about that media consortium that collects all the vote totals and adds them up for reporting the news. When that got fired up, guess whose votes got airbrushed out of the totals? Yeah, third party votes.

Really, there are so many formal and informal ways our election system has been rigged against third parties that it's absurd.

[Poxigah146]

That's because they don't want someone who will interfere with the uniparty of spending trillions we don't have an importing tens of millions of third world immigrants that Americans nearly universally don't want.

[Armchair]

While 3rd parties face substantial headwinds, funding and organization (which costs funding) is certainly a major one. And money can cure many of the issues they have.

If Musk is serious, and seriously about backing...it could be done.

[David Nieporent]

You then face being systematically excluded from campaign coverage, debates, and polling. Why, for instance, are the Presidential debates not still being conducted by the League of Women Voters, who everybody agreed was doing a bang-up job of running them? Because one year they dared to include a third party candidate. So the major parties created a bipartisan commission to run them, and boycott any debates third party candidates are invited to.

Sigh. Just as Brettlaw is untethered to the actual content of the constitution, Bretthistory is unencumbered by anything resembling facts. I have pointed out repeatedly that this is just wrong. It has no relationship to what happened. The LWV was not dropped because they "dared to include a third party candidate."

The only time the LWV included a third party candidate was the first debate in 1980, and the GOP was happy about that. (Carter was not, and skipped the debate.) The LWV then sponsored the debates in 1984, no third party candidates, and nobody boycotting.

In 1988, the parties created their bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates because they wanted control over the format, not because of anything relating to third parties. Indeed, the parties invited the LVW to sponsor the third debate in 1988, but the LWV — not the parties — refused the arrangement because the parties were still trying to dictate format, and the LWV thought the format was insipid and useless. Which it is, which is why the parties still use it.

[David Nieporent]

Here's what actually happened: you fancy yourself an above-it-all, independent free thinking maverick, so you initially worked with the LP. Then you realized that you were really just a Republican, so you quit the LP and joined the GOP. But your self-image won't allow you to admit it, so you have constructed these elaborate fantasies about how there was a conspiracy between the two main parties to undermine the Libertarians that just forced you to abandon the LP and become a Republican.

(Like all your conspiratorial fantasies, there are no facts underlying this one.)

[David Nieporent]

The legal landscape is a lot more hostile to third parties now

No, it isn't. This is just your sad rationalization for why you have to be MAGA rather than libertarian.

[David Nieporent]

He'd have been a lot better off trying to take over the GOP from inside.

He would not have been. As the vote on the OBBB — I will never, not even at gunpoint, use the juvenile Trumpian name for it — shows, the GOP will always put party over country. They virtually all fell into line as soon as Trump demanded it, and there's no reason to think any other GOP members wouldn't do the same if they were in office, regardless of how they got there.

[Frank Drackman]

Perot took more votes from Clinton than he did from GHWB or Dole

[Krayt]

Pretty much this, it's about splitting the ticket so the guy you hate loses.

Perot even withdrew the night before Clinton's nomination acceptance speech, saying the Democrats were thoroughly reinvigorated, so doubly people would tune in.

Those aren't the words someone trying themselves to win would use. Later he gets back in anyway as a safety valve.

[Frank Drackman]

Its like how most of RFK (the Original, not "Junior")'s supporters ended up voting for Nixon or Wallace in the General Erection, not so much that they were "Right Wing", but they (with good reason) couldn't stomach that gutless Ward Healer Humbert Humphrey

Frank

[Kazinski]

The biggest danger for Elon is the same danger we as voters face: he'll have candidates lined up telling him what he wants to hear to get his money, and once they're elected they will do what they same please.

There are a few of Senate races Elon can make a difference, Thom Till is has read the writing on the wall after voting against OBBB, and John Cornyn is very unpopular in Texas and will be beaten by Ken Paxton in the primary, but Paxton is none too popular himself. An independent in Texas could win, and Lindsey Graham is vulnerable in South Carolina.

[Armchair]

Perhaps. Elon might to do better to fund and target certain areas with 3rd party senators. Places which aren't "competitive", but which are underserved by the current system.

I'd target Rhode Island and Utah for example. RI has been trending "redder" for years...but the local GOP is so defeated that they're just protest candidates at this point. If Elon's third party was to drop $10 Million into local races, with serious coordination and ground game...you might be surprised.

[David Nieporent]

RI has been trending "redder" for years...

What is your basis for this claim? Even if you ignore all other races on the grounds that the local party runs bad candidates, we'd expect this "trend" to show up in presidential elections, and it hasn't.

[Armchair]

"we'd expect this "trend" to show up in presidential elections, and it hasn't."

Why lie like this? It has shown up. Anyone can look up the last 5 presidential elections in RI and see the trendline for the GOP vote in these elections getting higher.

Why lie like this? Is the driving need to "show up" people so defining for you, that you just lie about facts?

[LexAquilia]

The American Party is the H1-B Party, it's already filled with pajeets, mostly still living in India.

[Nelson]

Is it just me, or did this virulent racist show up right when Rob Misek disappeared?

Has anyone ever seen them together?

I really would prefer to think that there is only one person this vile here. Two antisemitic Holocaust denier xenophobes are two too many.

[David Nieporent]

1) Who is or was "Rob Misek"?
2) There are a group of 2-3 of these trolls here, all of whom have continuously shifting handles. Their styles and focuses are slightly different enough that there has to be more than one.

[Nelson]

Rob Misek is the overtly Holocaust denying, anti-abortion racist who posts here periodically. This Lex guy seems more focused on Israel and non-white people being awful, but is just as odious.

[David Nieporent]

Rob Misek is the overtly Holocaust denying, anti-abortion racist who posts here periodically.

Under what handle? I've never seen that name.

[Nelson]

That’s his handle. He’s not a frequent commenter, but you can find him in most abortion discussions.

His favorite thing to do is post a bunch of barely-if-at-all relevant things and finish with : Refuted!

[Commenter_XY]

Misek is a poor and miserable excuse for a human being, David.

I would turn him over to hamas, if given a choice.

[Moderation4ever]

Elon Musk's political talents, rather or lack of, were shown in the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. That said he has plenty of money and if he brought on some talented people he might be a threat. The recent political battle of the OBBB shows that if his new party could control a few seats in Congress they could have a significant leverage to make some changes.

He has also been accused of not paying money promised to voters.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5302053-elon-musk-america-first-pac-second-lawsuit-petition/

[David Nieporent]

Will Elon Musk become a thorn in Donald Trump's side in a manner similar to what Ross Perot was to George H. W. Bush?

Perot might have annoyed Bush (and/or Bush's campaign strategists), but virtually every poll showed that he drew support relatively equally from both candidates, and ultimately did not affect the outcome. (Now, maybe if he hadn't erratically dropped out and then tried to jump back in…)

[Krayt]

Odd. The one poll I heard said 90% would have voted Bush without him.

I guess which poll depends on what you want to "prove".

I suspect Bush may have lost anyway, but more because many would have sat at home as there was no Reagan or Perot-like enthusiasm.

[Magister]

It's not at all odd that the one poll you heard was the one that showed what you wanted to prove. It says a lot about you and nothing about the 1992 election.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what "one poll you heard," but if you're remembering correctly, that's a crazy figure utterly dissimilar from any other. Here's just one example; this one relied on exit polls:

Of responding Perot voters surveyed by VRS, 51% preferred Clinton as a second choice compared to 42% for Bush. A combined 7% would have supported other candidates or refrained from voting altogether.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bush ran the first time on being "Reagan's third term", and then devoted himself to undoing much of what Reagan had accomplished. For instance, Reagan had reined in the widely hated BATF, Bush took off the choke collar and told them to 'sic 'em!', resulting in Ruby Ridge and Waco. And, of course, we all read his lying lips, too.

So I kind of think he'd have lost regardless. But if you look at who waived the rules to get Perot on the ballot, it does look like he was intended to be a spoiler.

[not guilty]

George H. W. Bush got 37.5 percent of the popular vote in 1992, the lowest percentage by any Republican nominee since Alf Landon in 1936.

[David Nieporent]

It was a three way race. Clinton only got 43%. It doesn't make any sense to compare that to a two-person race.

[Sarcastr0]

Musk isn't a quitter, but he often says he'll do stuff and never starts it.

He's filed, but I'm going to wait till he spends real money before I feel like he's really committed.

[Paladin_44]

"Will Elon Musk become a thorn in Donald Trump's side in a manner similar to what Ross Perot was to George H. W. Bush?"
I certainly hope so!

[A Japanese Student]

Upper house election was called in Japan on July 3. Early voting has already started; the official election day is July 20.

Expect some more election-related news from me. It's very different from American ones - how we choose the winners, strict campaign speech and finance laws, and most importantly, what's going to happen.

Right now the most surprising-but-shouldn't-be-surprising news is the rise of Sanseito, definitely the most right-wing party Japan has seen since the end of WWII. It's the second most favored after LDP, and CDP (left-wing, major opposition party) is quickly losing support. Sanseito's policy makes no sense*, but that's why people are supporting it - same as in other countries.

*including repeal of the bill of rights, numerous conspiracy theories lacking scientific support, blanket opposition to vaccinations, etc.

[Krayt]

*including repeal of the bill of rights, numerous conspiracy theories lacking scientific support, blanket opposition to vaccinations, etc.

Article 11. The people shall not be prevented from enjoying any of the fundamental human rights. These fundamental human rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be conferred upon the people of this and future generations as eternal and inviolate rights.

The powerful grant you rights, the powerful taketh away. It's their whim.

Subgeniuses trying to write things in a form generalized by their mind, rather than a deep study of philosophy. Assertions of eternality and inviolability sans any rationality as to why. It's adjectives added to a gift from the powerful, the way food advertising copy always has to add an adjective to every noun.

There are two people around here, at least, who are agitating for full blown vox populi vox dei in the US, so demagogues with the gift of gab can blow up a transient majority and do whatever they want.

Ironically, they are opposed to Trump and complain that's pretty much the argument he's using. This is all lost on them.

[Malika the Maiz]

“The MAGA movement and its leaders demonize the Chinese Communist Party. But some of their actions validate the party’s ways, showing that practically speaking, they seem to want similar things.

Both push a muscular patriotism, are obsessed with manufacturing and hostile to immigrants. Both want a country where ethnic minorities are expected to bow to the dominant group and traditional gender roles are enforced. And all of this is presided over by a domineering ruling party led by an autocrat who flatters himself with military parades. Imitation is indeed the highest form of flattery.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/opinion/america-china-similarities-differences.html

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course, because it's the NYT it's pay-walled (thankfully).

[Bob from Ohio]

Be fair. At least its somewhat original. No Hitler or fascist in the quote.

[Bored Lawyer]

I saw something last week which I found shocking. It’s about an elite private school in Northern Virginia named the Nysmith School. The Washington Post wrote some time ago that it is celebrated as one of the top schools in the country. It comes with a hefty price tag -- $ 42k a year. Given the price tag and its location as a DC suburb, one can infer that the DC elite make up a significant part of the parent body.

The school is now subject of a complaint in the Virginia Office of Civil Rights: https://brandeiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Nysmith-Complaint.pdf

The Complaint is brought by parents of three Jewish children who were expelled. In a sixth-grade social-studies class, the children drew a picture of a “strong historical leader” that unmistakably depicts Adolph Hitler. You can see a picture on the front page of the complaint.

One child was bullied for her Jewishness:

In front of her classmates, the bullying children looked at their daughter, and called Jews “baby killers,” and said that they deserve to die because of what is happening in Gaza. Pointing at the other children, the bullies told their daughter that everyone at the school is against Jews and Israel, which is why they hate you. The other children also taunted her about the death of her uncle, saying that they were glad he died in the October 7th attack, even though he had died years earlier.

This is an elite, liberal school, where the children glorify Hitler, and taunt Jewish children, telling them they deserve to die. Now these are children, so their actions were taught to them by someone. Either the teachers, or their parents, or both.

The Complaint alleges that other parents were consulted about the Hitler picture, but the parents then decided to keep quiet. Apparently, among these parents, having their children taught that Hitler was a great historical leader is something unremarkable, at best.

That the parent body was not in an uproar about elementary school children being taught that Hitler is an example of a strong historical leader is disturbing. I shudder to think that this is considered acceptable in elite America.

[Sarcastr0]

'the children drew a picture' is doing some weird things between singular and plural.

This turns into: 'the children glorify Hitler' which is absolutely not established.

THAT turns into: 'school children being taught that Hitler is an example of a strong historical leader'

This complaint certainly has merit. Over the course of your writeup, you heightened the facts more than once to get to a place well outside of what the facts support.

You have got some kind of yearn for Jewish persecution issue.

[Armchair]

SarcastrO demonstrating the parents thought process in supporting Hitler and getting rid of the Jews.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It helps that Hitler and Stalin were contemporary -- I teach that both Hitler & Stalin were strong national leaders who did good things for their countries.

In my very next breath, I add that those ends did not justify the means they employed.

[minus the clever name]

You need grammar lessons.
First sentence is ellipsis The children [each] drew a picture

And the second sentence is ruled out on grammar and logic.
You made up the sentence. And you cannot say that because nothing is explicity therefore no child was glorifying Hitler.

And that is a misuse of 'yearn'

onging for something, =====> typically something that one has lost or been separated from.

[Malika the Maiz]

“You need grammar lessons.”

“And you cannot say that because nothing is explicity therefore no child was glorifying Hitler.”

Lol

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: Take a good look at the photograph in the complaint, showing a big drawing of Adolph Hitler being proudly uplifted by students and teacher.

You're a moron.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So I looked at the photograph in the complaint. It's a picture. No context. And it is objectively a picture of a strong political leader, well known to history as the acknowledged author of some of the worst atrocities in history—a role in which the picture seems to cast him. So where, "proudly uplifted by students," comes from is mysterious to me.

My guess is it was a juvenile effort to satirize the assignment. Or maybe a slightly more sophisticated effort at cautionary advocacy, about the double-edged character of, "strong political leader." The latter is what it would have been at my high school in the early 60s, and it would have likely been my Jewish fellow students doing it.

But for sure, I do not know enough to characterize with confidence what was going on this time. I think the confidence comes from pre-existing political tendencies.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, those 6 and 7 year olds are really masters of satire... = My guess is it was a juvenile effort to satirize the assignment.

AYFKM?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I thought it said sixth-graders. Am I mistaken.

[Bwaaah]

SL: "I do not know enough to characterize with confidence what was going on this time. I think the confidence comes from pre-existing political tendencies."

Pre-existing tendencies? I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a popular, widely held bias against Adolph Hitler in the U.S (and a lot of other places). It's common for people to deem it "offensive" to make light of Hitler, or even to joke about the subject of Hitler. For the same reason, people are commonly and easily offended by any but the most serious treatment of the subject of Adolph Hitler.

Those anti-Hitler biases, or "tendencies" as you say, are especially prevalent and reinforced by almost all political leaders, well-heeled institutions and keepers of power in the U.S. Anti-Hitler biases are prevalent and widely reinforced in U.S. educational institutions.

Are you not familiar with that? Do you think I am reading too much into the Hitler thing?

To quote another questioner, AYFKM?

[Commenter_XY]

Moron is too kind. Just think, he says he decides J-visa waivers. Can you imagine.

[Frank Drackman]

Paid top Shekels to send both daughters to an E-lite Atlanta Jewish Screw-el until even they started into the Liberal (redacted), turns out the local Pubic High Screw-el had less (redacted) and thanks to the sizeable Asian population better STEM classes and they both got proficient at habla-ing the Korean (Zip Code 30097 if you have to know)

Frank

[hobie]

Can't they stick to bullying gays and trans kids like they see the adults do on TV? Instead, their just a bunch of antisemitic terrorist tweens. Off to Salvador with them!

[bernard11]

The Complaint is brought by parents of three Jewish children who were expelled. In a sixth-grade social-studies class, the children drew a picture of a “strong historical leader” that unmistakably depicts Adolph Hitler.

This is unclear to me. Which children drew the picture - the three Jewish students, or others in the class? And and why were the three expelled?

[Bored Lawyer]

Read the Complaint. Basically, they were expelled because the parents complained about their being harassed, and the headmaster looked the other way.

[bernard11]

I read it.

Truly awful behavior by the school and Nysmith.

[santamonica811]

As always, the Complaint tells only one side (ie, the Plaintiffs') of the story. But if it's accurate, the school and the headmaster/owner acted in a deliberately appalling fashion. What is and is not true will eventually out, of course.

[David Nieporent]

What is your basis for the claim that it is a "liberal" school?

Weirdly, it is a for-profit school; that's pretty rare in the primary/secondary education world.

[Malika the Maiz]

"No death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing from, in some cases, a fine banker, and in some cases, shylocks and bad people," Trump said. "They destroyed a lot of families, but we did the opposite."

[Martinned]

Who knew that Trump apparently reads Shakespeare?

[minus the clever name]

"Shylock" was a common sixteenth-century English name

[John F. Carr]

Shakespeare wasn't even American.

[Krayt]

Shakespeare wasn't even American.

And so, like English degrees from presigious American universities, at least one course in Shakespeare no longer required.

[Moderation4ever]

First he have to learn to read.

[hobie]

More antisemitic tropes from the Right. Quelle suprise!

[SRG2]

I won't criticise Trump here. I think he is simply too ignorant to know that the slur is anti-Semitic.

[Moderation4ever]

Given both his age and his ignorance I would agree with you. Let us see if he has the strength to apologize.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If there were some objective test of knowledge which we could all take, some of us would exceed Trump by leaps and bounds. On the other hand, if there were a corollary test for ignorance, there would be only a tiny percentage difference in the results. Each of us does not know much about nearly everything.

Not sure what brought that to mind. Felt like it might tell us something worth noticing about politics. Maybe it explains why ignorant people are rational to suppose that does not much separate them from others.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I won't criticise Trump here. I think he is simply too ignorant to know that the slur is anti-Semitic.

Why give him such a benefit of the doubt? Is he also too ignorant to know the number of antisemitic people in his administration and among his supporters overall? Maybe. I also think it is reasonable to argue that he is also somewhat aware and at least doesn't care.

Also, people in his position have a higher standard they should meet & warrant criticism in various cases even if they are not blatantly intending to offend. That applies in various cases to everyday speech. More so presidential speech.

[Ridgeway]

In the NYC area, at least, I don't think "Shylock" is viewed as an antisemitic slur in this context. Rather, it is a slangy synonym for "loan shark."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In the NYC area, at least, I don't think "Shylock" is viewed as an antisemitic slur in this context. Rather, it is a slangy synonym for "loan shark."

I'm from the NYC area, FWIW, and I don't know if this is true.

Generally, it has not been a commonly used term in recent memory -- in the NYC area, too -- partially because it is deemed offensive.

The "loan shark" usage is not understood to be a religiously neutral one. "Shylock" is used over something else for reasons. As usual, some exceptions might apply, but the general point holds.

Trump says he did not know the term's baggage. Again, even if we assume that, it is not a reason to give him a pass.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5385535-donald-trump-iowa-speech-shylock-comment/

[bernard11]

Where is this from?

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit told the District of Massachusetts to reconsider its universal injunction against Donald Trump's citizenship order in light of the recent Supreme Court decision Trump v. CASA. This is not surprising. The interesting part is the First Circuit just alternatively gendered the President. The caption reads

DONALD J. TRUMP, in their official capacity as President of the United States

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1169O-01A.pdf

[Swede425]

No no no.
That's just them recognizing that he's a king.
The Royal We and all that.

[A Japanese Student]

Isn't the case caption assigned by the plaintiff?

[John F. Carr]

The complaints used the pronoun "his".
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69561497/state-of-new-jersey-v-trump/

The initial papers on appeal used the pronoun "his". The Appeals Court ordered use of "their" and the government complied. See document 108257727.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69653510/doe-v-trump/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Given, "official capacity," what makes that a gendering issue? Presidents, even all-male presidents, have in their official capacities been plural. Perhaps someone was alert enough to note that to say, "his," would imply a decision applicable only to Trump.

[Bwaaah]

Not only does "their" clearly refer to Donald J Trump, but also introduces the dumbass use of a conventionally plural pronoun, which you seem so intent to trip over.

[Sarcastr0]

A lot of federal spending is on risk mitigation. Easy to cut funding and people without immediate consequences. Then you get tragedies like what happened in Texas.

This will get worse before it gets better.

[LexAquilia]

How sick are you to politic on the warm-bodies of dead children?

Do you do this because they were White Christian children?

You disgust me. You should be ashamed of yourself. Parents are still hoping for good news.

BlueAnon, BlueSky, BlueBrainRot, BlueMonsters

[Armchair]

Indeed.

[Frank Drackman]

OK Lexie (does your Boyfriend call you that? I’ll bet he does)
You’re right on this one, hey sometimes you have to take the Child Molester on your team to beat the Child Murderers
But seriously, as you should know, are the restrooms better at Lowe’s or Home Depot? And are we supposed to tip you guys when you tell us where the shower fixtures are?
(I always do)
Frank

[LexAquilia]

Frank, what do Jews generally think about Christians?

[minus the clever name]

Illogical to posit that because you can group , you can define.
So if you ask a Black, Catholic, heterosexual, patriotic, Caribbean-descent person about something --- DO they answer as a Black ??????

[LexAquilia]

That's not true at all. There are some fundamental and foundational beliefs to the Jewish religion with regards to Christians and non-Jews in general. Sure there are individual exceptions, but that doesn't mean the general case doesn't hold.

[minus the clever name]

But it does, because being a Jew is not a religious designation and where it is ,it goes from Liberal to Orthodox Jew. I myself am Jewish descent. And if I say something that you would call part of the general case you would most times be wrong because I am not answering AS A JEW

[David Nieporent]

The only fundamental and foundational belief to the Jewish religion with regards to Christians is that your beliefs are incompatible with Judaism.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I use Christian Baby blood for our rituals, satisfied now?

[LexAquilia]

There's plenty of historical evidence supporting your confession.

[Commenter_XY]

They are human beings created in the image of our Living God = Frank, what do Jews generally think about Christians?

[Martinned]

Thoughts & prayers

[David Nieporent]

How sick are you to politic on the warm-bodies of dead children?

Yes, the people who used Laken Riley's corpse as an argument against Biden are quite concerned about not exploiting deaths for political purposes.

[Moderation4ever]

Strange how the right is so offend by bringing up dead people when it their policies being questioned and so willing to bring the dead up to suit their agenda.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Lex, that is truly one of the most pathetic comments I've ever seen here. Try engaging with the point actually being made, for once. Is the only reason you feel sympathy for these dead children because they were white Christians? Your insincere outrage is laughable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get your talking point from George Fullocrapolis?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/george-stephanopoulos-gets-caught-smearing-president-trump-massive/

[tylertusta]

Talking points have indeed gone out over the weekend: NWS cuts are to blame, and therefore Trump is to blame. It's the Katrina playbook again.

We're expected to ignore that the NWS's New Braunfels office put out alerts well ahead of time and that the office had extra staff, and we're also to somehow imagine how those additional people would have somehow made a difference. Unless those 560 cut NWS positions were also in the Army Corps of Engineers, I don't see how they would have mattered.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

A little like blaming the DC plane crash on Pete Buttigieg? Or DEI hiring by the Biden admin. Trying to remember your comments about how wrong that was.

[tylertusta]

Since I don't recall making either of the comments you're implying that I made, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

[John F. Carr]

NPR has a timeline of warnings and emergency preparation. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/05/nx-s1-5457759/texas-floods-timeline

A cell phone alert that goes out around 1 AM on a dark and stormy night is of limited effect. Years earlier the county had considered sirens and decided the cost was too high.

So far "Trump killed those children" appears to be a fringe left view.

[Sarcastr0]

cell phone alert that goes out around 1 AM on a dark and stormy night is of limited effect.

Seems like the sort of thing someone with long experience in federal emergency mitigation would have realized and delt with, eh?

[LexAquilia]

Did those people not exist at FEMA before Jan 20th, 2025?

[Bwaaah]

"Seems like the sort of thing someone with long experience in federal emergency mitigation would have realized and delt with, eh?"

The same people who over decades built the noisy notification systems currently in place?

No. I'm sure you meant the ineffectual ones who were charged with fixing the morass.

[Commenter_XY]

He really doesn't get it, Bwaaah.

[Bwaaah]

It wasn't enough that the climate was killing us. Now, the weatherman is killing us. It is such hubris in man that he should see nature itself as a victim of his hand. (My bet is on nature for the win.)

And what is the proposed solution to the concocted problem? More Sarcastr0-like career experts who can reliably summarize the problem in an annual PowerPoint.

Oh jeez.

[Stephen Lathrop]

As with Covid, unwise emergency policy can prove deadly. This looks like a case to prove that principle with regard to flash flooding. Apparently, based on prior experience, the local expectation was that appropriately-placed sirens would have saved lives. Why object?

[Nelson]

Apparently you haven’t had your phone scream at you about (for my area) a tornado watch. It could wake the dead.

[John F. Carr]

I have my phone on silent. None of the weather warnings are useful to me. A flash flood around here means a puddle on the road that you shouldn't drive through. A tornado watch means there might be thunderstorms. If I lived in Oklahoma I would pay more attention.

There are people who can sleep through anything. I have not heard whether anybody at the most affected camps was awake to see a cell phone alert or was awakened by one. Some people at other camps did stay up to monitor the weather. A news headline this morning wondered if weather radios would make a comeback.

[Nelson]

“ I have my phone on silent.”

I do, too. The urgent warnings push through it.

The ones that push through silent modes are the urgent ones. They don’t happen very often. We have tornados these days (didn’t have them for the first couple decades I lived here) and I think it only pushes when one has been reported, not just radar-indicated. Every time we’ve gotten the alert, a tornado has touched down in the area, so it’s very accurate.

I don’t know if they do flash floods as well, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

[John F. Carr]

The first push to cell phones was around 1 AM. There are two levels of flash flood warning. NWS chose the higher level. The lower level would not have appeared on cell phones. Around 4 AM the warning was upgraded to an emergency. The emergency level is rare enough that people will not get used to it. The Hill Country gets a flash flood warning every couple weeks. In 2023 there were no flash flood emergencies in Texas. See https://weather.com/safety/floods/news/2024-01-23-flash-flood-emergency-never-ignore.

[Swede425]

That's gross.
Even from a dickhead like you.
But not unexpected.

[Martinned]

The gross part is the irresponsible budget cuts.

[Swede425]

Go fund a military, freeloader.

[Martinned]

Go fund FEMA, freeloader.

[Michael P]

We tried that, and the Autopen administration used FEMA to block aid for people hit by Hurricane Helene.

[Malika the Maiz]

Uh huh.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd1q9q9gl9o.amp

[Sarcastr0]

This is actually a great example of how this tragedy happened.

The admin is all in on spite cuts based on the right-wing fever swamp lies.

What great red meat for the base...until it isn't. And then the base gets mad when the consequences of their action are pointed out to them.

[Don Nico]

"The admin is all in on spite cuts based on the right-wing fever swamp lies."
Spoken like a bureaucrat glued to the government tit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It's worse than that, Sarcastr0. Texas government is playing the aftermath as a story of government competence and heroism, against a backdrop of, "Who could have known this could happen."

Then you look at the rescue coverage, and notice all the bridges were engineered in expectation of enormous floods.

I can't listen to any more of it.

[tylertusta]

Says the European freeloading off of the US security umbrella, though perhaps for not much longer.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck yeah lets spite pull out of NATO!

Same high-risk-no-reward shit as the NWS/NOAA/FEMA cuts.

[tylertusta]

Fuck yeah, let's just make up things I didn't actually say!

A day that Sarcastr0 makes a straw man is a day that ends in "y."

[Sarcastr0]

Then what DID you mean with 'US security umbrella, though perhaps for not much longer?'

Sure sounds like you're talking about NATO, and it perhaps not being around for much longer.

[tylertusta]

Naturally, you assume the worst about somebody you don't agree with politically. Even your quote was deceptively chosen.

To wit: I referred to freeloading (the part of the quote you didn't include); as of last week, NATO governments have largely committed to a target spend of 5%* of GDP on military defense spending by 2035. Ergo, the freeloading under the US security umbrella may stop in the future.

Furthermore, a 5%-ish target makes a US security umbrella unnecessary; the EU would have a military capable of rivaling the United States.

Now that you're done relying on your priors by assuming the worst in people, you can get bent.

* It's 3.5% on military spending plus another 1.5% on a nebulously defined "critical infrastructure."

[Sarcastr0]

Quit pettifogging.
You said: 'not much longer.'

I'm relying on the words you said right above.

[tylertusta]

Did your parents drop you on your head as a child?

[Sarcastr0]

Not coming up with a great rejoinder, eh?

[tylertusta]

I already did, and I didn't see the need to repeat myself.

I figured I'd play along with your nonsense since that's all you've got now:

When your parents dropped you on your head, how much did your IQ drop?

[Sarcastr0]

Wait, so you didn't mean NATO wouldn't be providing a defense umbrella, you meant Europe would all be supporting NATO at the 5% target level?

That's not better, dude!

[tylertusta]

I'm disappointed that it took you that long to re-read my comments to try to find something else to misquote/take out of context.

[minus the clever name]

No, DC produces nothing, the money is still there, more in fact -- no bureaucracy, collection folks, red tape.

If those things are important to you ,you now have more money not less, that money is coming from :YOU

[minus the clever name]

What does that mean?The money is still there. DC produces nothing, it just spends -- OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY

[tylertusta]

Then you get tragedies like what happened in Texas.

Oh? What new imaginary spending would have prevented the disaster in Texas?

[Frank Drackman]

Ummm Life Preservers??????

[Joe_dallas]

First - Your comment is an asshole comment
Second - Any federal government spenting cuts had Absolutely nothing to do with the flooding or the lack of warning of the flooding.

[Malika the Maiz]

“government spenting cuts”

Seems the department of ds got hit hard….

[Martinned]

Sure, it was technically the hurricanes that worried them. Then again, hurricane season isn't over yet.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/head-doge-gutted-fema-admits-154926118.html

[Sarcastr0]

You don't think deep staff cuts to FEMA and NOAA and NWS had anything to do with this?

Career experts in preventing exactly this kind of thing from happening are the sort who retire early, or take the deferred resignation. The dedicated younger folks who got promoted for their merit got cut because they were probationary.

And unless any of you were impacted, this is all performative outrage.

[LexAquilia]

Use your big science brain to close the loop between your alleged cuts and the deaths.

Use facts and evidence. Not wishes, hopes, and dreams.

[tylertusta]

Warnings went out hours ahead of time, and the NWS office was fully staffed ahead of the anticipated storm.

this is all performative outrage.

Yes, your source is definitely performative outrage.

The only way that this could get more ridiculous is for you to start blaming climate change.

[Sarcastr0]

Wrong level of warning, wrong level of engagement, and the hours is not nearly enough lead-time.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/deadly-texas-flood-exposes-neglected-weather-alert-system-trump-aims-modernize

"Though a flood watch was issued, Noem described it as a "moderate" alert."

I would also note fully staffed says nothing about the quality of the staffing. As I said, one of the really dumb thing about the DOGE cuts is who it targeted.

Sure, the politicals are already insisting it was totally fine and nothing they could do.
But the causality story here is about as stark as risk causality gets.

[tylertusta]

"Wrong level of warning."

No, they made the appropriate alert based on current and expected conditions.

The weather then had an unexpected change where it stalled over one area. The NWS put out an additional and more serious alert but by then it's in the middle of the night where most people are asleep. It's also in a remote area of Texas with few people and few cell towers.

What was needed was better cell coverage in the area, or at the very least a radio watch by the camp staff.

[Sarcastr0]

So the 'warnings went out hours ahead of time' was you referring to the low level warning. How disingenuous of you!

And the engagement strat once the threat manifested (whether noticed as early as it could have been or not) was way low. The kind of thing experts can help with.

I'm not sure what level of evidence you're demanding, but absent access to the counterfactual I stand behind the fact that this is about as strong a case as risk based causality gets.

You can keep quoting ass-covering by politicals all you want.

[tylertusta]

So the 'warnings went out hours ahead of time' was you referring to the low level warning. How disingenuous of you!

The only dishonesty here is yours.

The first warning that afternoon said that flooding may happen (aka a Flood Watch). A flood watch asks people to pay attention to further updates and for people should take extra precautions. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone at the camp took any precautions whatsoever.

The Flash Flood Warning went out at 1:14 AM. It included automatic notifications to all cell phones and across the NWS weather radio. Flooding wasn't even noticed until 4:35AM- over three hours later.

The kind of thing experts can help with.

I hear you're an expert in meteorology and disaster preparedness now, father. It hasn't escaped me that you can't even trot out a mouthpiece who looks at the weather map at 15 hours ahead of time, scratches her beard, and then boldly declares that there's going to be massive flooding.

I bet you didn't know that Kerr County, TX, doesn't even have a flood warning system. Not even sirens:

KXAN-TV, the NBC affiliate in Austin, reported that in 2018, Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority applied for a $1 million grant for a flood warning system, but the grant was not selected. Citing meeting minutes, KXAN said the county was still pursuing grant options in 2020 and 2023.

(I can see why Democrats are so desperate to get ahead of this to try to pin this on Trump )

As for me, I'm done feeding the troll (that would be you, Sarcastr) for today.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm no expert, but I know what an engagement strategy is. A cell phone alert at 1am is not a very good one.

[tylertusta]

By this comment I've now discovered it you have never lived in the midwest or any place where bad weather happens regularly.

Yes, a cell alert and a radio alert are exactly what the NWS does. That's how they've been doing it for years before Trump came down the escalators. The NWS literally does not have the capability to do more than that.

Your contention that some hypothetical staffer could have seen things coming sooner is still missing the key component of proof.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I'm shamefully bicoastal. But I also have a pretty wide network that includes plenty of people.

If even I was able to suss out that people tend to turn off alerts in Texas due to their abuse of blue alerts, you'd hope the experts in FEM...oh, right.

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/fcc-gets-thousands-of-complaints-blue-alert-in-texas-shooting/

[tylertusta]

Your contention that some hypothetical staffer could have seen things coming sooner is still missing the key component of proof.

Non-responsive.

Thanks for playing.

[Don Nico]

Geez,
Why don't you blame the voters in the county who voted down a flood warning system three years ago.
Why do you assume that the 3 extra personnel are incompetent as opposed to one supervisor who had not yet been replaced.
Why don't you blame the folks who established children's campus in an area that is prone to flooding?
It does not fit the gaslighting narrative; that's why.

[tylertusta]

Ghouls just gotta ghoul.

[Sarcastr0]

Disingenuous emotionalism shows you know you have a weak case.

[tylertusta]

Using dead children to advance a false narrative shows you're contemptible.

[Sarcastr0]

This is bad faith concern trolling.

You, who have been if anything scornful of any mention of empathy before this point, suddenly have a bleeding heart?

No. You're lying to try and score Internet points.

Pathetic.

[tylertusta]

What else can I say except that I don't like dead children to be used as people's political pawns, especially when people are lying to use it.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you are lying.

I based this on your history of not objecting to 'think of the children' or MAGA invocation of tragedies, and your longstanding defense of the administration's cruelty.

Which means the one who doesn't care about this stuff is you, with your cynical attempt to deploy empathetic outrage as a collateral attack.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 31 minutes ago
"You, who have been if anything scornful of any mention of empathy before this point, suddenly have a bleeding heart?"

Sacastro - you were the first person that made the asshole comment, yet you condemn tylertusta. Pathetic and sick comment

[tylertusta]

You will find I'm shameless about having empathy for dead children while not having much for people who break our laws: lie, cheat, steal, murder, and so on. You'll also find that I don't have a great deal of sympathy for scofflaws. What's contemptible is that their supporters will raise an army of lawyers who will bring any argument- no matter how specious- to allow those scofflaws to keep being scofflaws; to keep breaking our laws by lying, cheating, and so on.

All so they can oppose a President that they don't like. And now many of those same people are trying to nebulously tie funding cuts to a tragedy involving dead children.

I think someone here has a broken moral compass but it sure isn't me.

You should go back to blaming it on climate change like the rest of the cultists.

[Commenter_XY]

It wasn't tylertusta who made dead children a political issue, Sarcastr0. You did. Sick puppy.

[Don Nico]

"You don't think deep staff cuts to FEMA and NOAA and NWS had anything to do with this? "
No. I do believe that voters refusing to pay for a flood warninf system 3 years ago did have a lot to do with it.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"You don't think deep staff cuts to FEMA and NOAA and NWS had anything to do with this?"

No - if you bothered to become informed prior to your inane comment, then you would know the answer is No!

[David Nieporent]

Come on. One of the people working at those agencies must have been black, or hispanic, or a woman, or gay. DEI is obviously to blame.

[Joe_dallas]

No one implied that DEI was a cause.
Yet you join the ranks of other leftists making an asshole comments.

[David Nieporent]

Not only does bookkeeper_joe fail to understand sarcasm, but he's also wrong. (Shocking, I know. Almost like finding out that there's gambling going on in here.) Here's inner circle MAGA Charlie Kirk, openly stating that DEI was a cause:

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1942706102346604965

[hobie]

As I'm from the area, I read a lot of local FB group discussions on the flood over the weekend. I noted that none of the hayseeds said 'thoughts and prayers'. Either everyone realized its been worn out into cartoonishness, or it's only used for kids who were shot to death. I'm thinking the latter.

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-stank, you are the proverbial Turd in the Punchbowl,
just pretend it was a bunch of Black/Hispanic/Illegal Alien Tranny Kids that drowned.

[hobie]

You don't want to be labelled an Antitrans Terrorist, Frankie. That albatross stays with you for life

[Bob from Ohio]

"Then you get tragedies like what happened in Texas."

First grave dancer of the morning! Bravo!

NWS issued a flood watch 12 hours before hand and a flash flood warning 3 hours before. What, oh weather expert, should have happened differently?

[Sarcastr0]

Bob may be the king of bad faith concern trolling on this shit.

Good luck with your 'staffing cuts didn't matter; everything worked perfectly and nothing could have been done to avoid this' push.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dude, even a crazy lefty like Nina Turner says you are morally bankrupt.

"Nina Turner@ninaturner
23h
The GOP’s budget cuts to NOAA are set to take effect at the start of fiscal year 2026, which begins on October 1, 2025.

Anyone making the deaths of the children in Texas about partisan politics is morally bankrupt. Please reflect."

[Sarcastr0]

Nina Turner was attacking Harris all of last year, and also Obama. I'm so not sure you can do an admission against interest from her.

And even if you could, your response to my criticism of your hypocricy is to lean on the authority of someone you think I gotta agree with?

I'm not the tool you are.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just morally bankrupt.

[Commenter_XY]

You're just a sad pathetic excuse for a human being.

[Martinned]

There should have been more thoughts & prayers

[Kazinski]

Here are the facts July 2 two days before the flood the first warnings went out:
"Wednesday, July 2nd:

The Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) announced that it was activating state emergency response resources because of the threat of flooding.

At 3:41 p.m. Central Time, early hints of severe weather came in a post on X by the National Weather Service Austin/San Antonio that said: "scattered moderate to heavy showers continue to develop and expand to the Hill Country."

July 3:
At 1:18 p.m., the National Weather Service Austin/San Antonio issued a flood watch, saying "local heavy rainfall could cause flash flooding." At 2:35 p.m. the flood watch was announced on X, saying "pockets of heavy rain are expected and may result in flooding."
At 6:10 p.m., the National Weather Service's Weather Prediction Center issued an assessment for Texas Hill Country about "heavy rainfall," mentioning "flash flooding likely."

At 11:41 p.m., the National Weather Service office in Austin/San Antonio posted a flash flood warning.

At 11:42 p.m., the National Weather Service Austin/San Antonio posted on X upgrading its flood watch to a flood warning for part of the impacted area. In a post from 1:14 a.m. on Friday, that area was expanded. "

July 4:
At 12:26 a.m., the National Weather Service's Weather Prediction Center said "flash flooding likely overnight with significant impacts possible." This message was posted on X a minute later.

The National Weather Service Austin/San Antonio followed up its warning from 11:41 p.m. Thursday with another flash flood warning at 1:14 a.m. Friday. Another 14 flash flood warnings, which are posted on the NWS website and elsewhere, would come between then and 10:46 a.m.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/05/nx-s1-5457759/texas-floods-timeline

You should be ashamed of yourself Sarcastro are there any lies you won't tell to politicize a tragedy?

[Kazinski]

I will say one factor locals in the hill country have pointed out is they get too many warnings from NWS so they tune them out.

As a former Texan i can tell you while hurticanes are the most dangerous, the suden storms you can get when nobody expects them can catch you out of the blue, even when the weather is chattering about the possibility for days.

The moist gulf air can turn into an inrense thunderstorm within hours when you least expect it. I remember one storm in Houston where the day started clear and calm and 7 inches of rain fell between noon and 3pm and flooded the i10 freeway with 6 feet of water flooding thousands of cars. by the time I left the office at 5:30 it was over, and an easy comute on 59 except for the hundreds of abandoned cars on the apron.

There are the potential for a lot more of these storms than materialize which leads to complacency.

My Grandmother was 10 years old when she lived through the 1905 Galveston hurricane which is still by far the worst natural disaster in Texas history. There was no warning at all for that one.

[Jmaie]

"Andy Hazelton, a climate scientist who modelled hurricane paths for the NOAA until he was fired during the layoffs in February, says: "I don't think the staffing issues contributed directly to this event. They got the watches and the warnings out.""

"The forecasts and warnings all played out in a normal manner. The challenge with this event was that it is very difficult to forecast this type of extreme, localised rainfall," says Avantika Gori, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University in Texas."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyndrwz00xo

FWIW

[apedad]

Hey MAGArittos!

Trump Administration Launches National Citizenship Database to Tighten Voter Integrity

https://undercodenews.com/trump-administration-launches-national-citizenship-database-to-tighten-voter-integrity/

You good with this?

Apparently it will combine:

-Tax filings
-Student debt
-Social Security
-Bank accounts
-Medical claims
-Immigration status

[LexAquilia]

So it takes all the data from disparate federal systems and combines them into a sort of master index?

How stupid is the bureaucracy to have silo'd this for so long? Maybe they aren't stupid and they did this by design to aid in fraud and corruption.

[Malika the Maiz]

Lex: Our government is being run by ZOG Overlords!

Also Lex: How great is it that the government is being a master index of all its sensitive information on me and everyone else!

Lol

[Sarcastr0]

Ffs he used ZOG?

Fucker should go back to Reddit.

[LexAquilia]

That's a stupid argument. Sure, ZOG is Israel First, but it still provides functions to people here.

Do they make you wear a helmet when you leave your room?

[Malika the Maiz]

Yeah, what bad could come from such a powerful, benevolent entity with such information easily at their hands?

[LexAquilia]

Oh I don't know, secure elections? Reduced fraud? Reduced waste?

You want these same people to control 100% of your healthcare, but you don't want them to operate efficiently and effectively? That's kinda retarded, don't you agree?

[Malika the Maiz]

Lex: I want our ZOG overlords to have the tools for efficient rule over me!

[LexAquilia]

Good grief, I forget how stupid and tedious you are.

[Swede425]

They already know how many guns I own.
This should worry me?

[Malika the Maiz]

They already can see me in my yard, so why care if they can see me in my house?

[Swede425]

Which of those pieces of information does the government not have on me, a citizen?
All of it. They have all of it.
Are you thinking I should be concerned because they want to combine it to see if I'm eligible to vote?
I'm not.
You know who should be concerned?
Somebody who isn't eligible to vote.
And the people who want to make it easy for those people to vote.
So, again, not me.

[Malika the Maiz]

Swede: My Dear King would only use such a master index wisely and for good!

[Swede425]

My Dear King already has this information.
I'm really sorry this would make it difficult for ineligible people to vote.
You seem really concerned about that.
Try a glass of water.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don’t give a hoot about that, what I do give a hoot about is all my info being put into one index and then some bureaucrat sends it out on Signal to somebody or some such predictable stupidity. But I get some people trust the government the way a five year old trusts their dad.

[Swede425]

Well, thankfully, the government doesn't already have the ability to do that. You know, put the information they have of you onto a list of other information they have on you. But I get that some people think the government doesn't know how to make lists. Those are usually people who've never had to get a security clearance before. Again, not concerned.

[apedad]

Getting a security clearance is a voluntary action though, i.e., no one is forced by law to go in the military or the intel community.

[Swede425]

All true.
And yet, even if people don't choose to get a security clearance the government still has this information.
This started out as haw haw haw the trump government wants to make a list and trumpers hate lists. Ignoring the fact that the information is already in the government's hands.
The thing is, there are a lot of people who are angry because this particular list has a use that they don't like: cleaning up the voting rolls. And I think that's great. It's what I voted for. Now, couple that with counting only US citizens for representation purposes on the census and I'll expect people here to have kittens on the floor. I voted for that, too. Fingers crossed!

[David Nieporent]

Now, couple that with counting only US citizens for representation purposes on the census and I'll expect people here to have kittens on the floor. I voted for that, too.

Not surprising you voted to defy the constitution. Not even surprising that you brag about it. Nor is it surprising that you're too dumb to realize that's what you're doing.

[apedad]

I thought you said you had a security clearance because the SF-86 requires a lot of information not readily available in govt databases.

See Sections 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29

https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86/

[Malika the Maiz]

Being able to and doing it are almost like two different things…

[David Nieporent]

I'm really sorry this would make it difficult for ineligible people to vote.

What do any of the items on that list of topics, other than immigration status, have to do with eligibility to vote?

[Swede425]

Off the top of my head?

Tax filings - are they even alive? A US citizen?
Student debt - overstay a student visa? A US citizen?
Social Security - have a ss number/card? A US citizen?
Bank accounts - are you paying taxes? Should you be? A US citizen?
Medical claims - medicaid/medicare? Are you eligible? A US citizen?
Immigration status - obvious.

I would imagine those are useful pieces of information when painting a picture of who is eligible to vote. Scrutiny of those things should be happening already. But is the left hand talking to the right hand? I don't know. Maybe/maybe not. Again, just off the top of my head. Maybe there are other uses that I didn't list but could be useful. I guess we wait and see. I'll leave it to you to fret about it.

[bernard11]

I'm really sorry this would make it difficult for ineligible people to vote.

Also eligible people.

Do you honestly believe the government is going to do a halfway accurate job of putting together this database?

Besides questions about the competence of the individuals doing the work, the notion that they will even try to be accurate and non-partisan is dubious.

Remember, this is one of the most dishonest, incompetent, and law-breaking administrations we've ever had.

It is interesting, though, to see commenters who don't think the government could run a lemonade stand believe that this will be done accurately.

I mean, there are plenty of commenters here who wouldn't trust the government to run a lemonade stand, but suddenly this will all be done perfectly, by a completely dishonest and incompetent administration.

[Swede425]

The government can absolutely run a lemonade stand.
They just can't do it well.
No efficiency. The private sector can do it much better.
Incentives, and all that.
Are you suggesting that the government hire a contractor to construct this database or otherwise farm it out to the private sector?
You may be onto something there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"government hire a contractor"

Low bidder. Its not going to be much better than if an employee does it.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't even know how many guns I own.

[Martinned]

They already know how many guns I own.

Do they? Or do they have some minimum estimate, which is only correct if you didn't gift one of your guns to your brother as a birthday gift?

[Michael P]

Why are you asking "MAGArittos"? It's you people who blocked all the easier, less invasive alternative ways to keep voting rolls clean.

[Malika the Maiz]

Why do you make me hit you?

[apedad]

Really?!?

In 2021, "Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell . . . expressed opposition to passage of the (John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act), and said that its passage is 'unnecessary' because there is currently 'no threat to the voting rights law'.

Republicans have argued that the act is an attempt to federalize control of state elections to the Democrats' advantage."

[Michael P]

Yes, really. That law is good example of Democrats trying -- albeit failing in this case -- to make it harder to ensure elections are clean. And as usual, Ted Frank's Law applies.

[Sarcastr0]

Care to walk through how the law in question made it harder to 'ensure elections are clean?'

[Don Nico]

It was bound to happen in the age of big data. The only doubt was who would be POTUS at the time.

[A Japanese Student]

Should've happened decades ago. Though I'd like to see statutory authorizations and (especially tax data - they have strict protections, as far as I am aware.)

When I posted a week ago or so suggesting this, one of the criticisms I got was that it would allow the federal government to disenfranchise people by removing from the database. That's a fair criticism.

A better way would be to require federal database lookup before casting a ballot, but always allow provisional ballots to be cast in case of any error - and requiring the state government to prove ineligibility (instead of voter proving eligibility).

[David Nieporent]

Apparently it will combine:

Note that firearm ownership is conspicuously absent.

[LexAquilia]

I f'n love the direction where the Overton Window is going:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFvvpPavfzk

[David Nieporent]

I for one applaud all white supremacists self-segregating in a small corner of Arkansas.

[Nelson]

Even better would be if they grabbed some concrete shoes and gathered in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.

[David Nieporent]

I'm also okay if they do that in the Gulf of America.

[ReaderY]

Suppose a state legislature directs that its presidential electors be appointed in the following manner:

1. Slates of electors pledge to vote for candidates in the usual way.
2. Any candidate meeting the constitutional qualifications can appear in the popular ballot in the usual way.
3. The Secretary of State is directed to appoint the appoint the slate of electora pledged to the candidate who, of those who meet certain additional qualifications such as not having been convicted of a felony in the last ten years, receives the most popular votes.

This system completely complies with Trump v. Anderson because it doesn’t interfere in the slightest with who can appear on the popular ballot and who the citizenry is permitted to vote for. It concerns itself solely with the appointment of Presidential electors, an entirely differenr matter, and one lying completely within the State Legislature’s plenary power prerogative.

After all, a state legislature can provide for an entitrely advisory popular ballot and then appoint the electors itself, accepting or rejecting the popular vote as it pleases. It can allow the electors to ignore the popular vote and vote as they please. If it can do those things, why not this?

In Presidential elections, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment protects the right of the people to vote for the candidate of their choice when a state has a popular ballot for Presidentf. But the long history of maverick electors, the text of the Electoral Clause, etc. all indicate that the First Amendment right stops there. The people have no constitutional right to have their votes translate directly into electoral votes, and no right to have the candidate they voted for actually be elected President.

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe there's some sort of precedent that, while the states are free to select electors in any manner they chose, if they chose a popular vote, they're obligated to respect the outcome of that vote. Your step 3 conspicuously fails on that score.

[ReaderY]

How would you fit maverick electors into that framework? Electors can still constitutionally vote for whomever they please. State legislatures can constrain them, but they don’t have to. And of course the structure of the electoral college itself means that the candidate winning the national popular vote doesn’t always win the electoral college votes.

So it’s part of the long-accepted framework of the electoral college that popular votes don’t necessarily translate into electoral college votes.

[Josh R]

Change step 3 to candidates who meet the additional qualification of not inciting an insurrection as determined by state law. Trump v. Anderson does not permit the Secretary of State to ignore votes for that candidate.

[ReaderY]

Where exactly in Trump v. Anderson does it say this? It spoke only about who can appear on the popular ballot, nothing more.

Indeed, Trump v. Anderson explicitly acknowledged the possibility that state’s electoral college system could permit an elector, or for that matter an entire slate of electors, to vote for a candidate different from the popular vote. This is entirely consistent with that acknowledgment.

[ReaderY]

Also, the state is not ignoring the votes. They will be counted, totalled, and included as input into its method of appointing its presidential electors in the manner directed by its legislature.

[Josh R]

The Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump not only had to be excluded from the ballot, but that the Secretary of State could not count any write-in votes for Trump.

They will be counted, totalled, and included as input into its method of appointing its presidential electors in the manner directed by its legislature.

Are you seriously arguing Colorado could have not counted any votes for Trump based on 14.3?

[ReaderY]

The whole point of my post is to discuss a hypothetical statutory scheme completely different from the one Colorado had. The intended discussion is about whether the differences from Colorado’s scheme successfully avoid the concerns the Supreme Court had with Colorado’s. And by Trump v. Anderson I mean the US Supreme Court case, not the state court case.

Why not discuss the hypothetical scheme rather than focusing on Colorado?

[Josh R]

I posited a slightly different hypothetical. Trump is on the ballot. Colorado has a statute whereby the Secretary of State does not include those votes in determining who gets Colorado's electors because of 14.3 (rather than convicted of a felony). Do you really think that's consistent with Anderson? Do you think it makes a difference whether the votes are not included because of 14.3 versus felony conviction?

[ReaderY]

The per curiam opinion in Trump v. Anderson held that states cannot enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment with respect to candidates for federal office.

This makes the answer to your hypothetical a definite no. Trump v. Anderson makes clear States can’t do anything “because of 14.3.”

That’s why my hypothetical took care to ensure that the manner in which Presidential electors are appointed in a state adopting it is totally independent of 14.3.

[Josh R]

OK. Let's try another hypothetical. Same, except instead of being a felon, it's being under the age of 45. That seems to me to conflict with the Constitution's explicit under 35 exclusion and would suffer the same fate as 14.3 (noting, Anderson did not address the issue).

As for being a felon, that adds an additional requirement the Constitution is silent on. My belief, is any additional requirement is not permitted. The Constitution's limitations are the only ones allowed.

[ReaderY]

Why? Under my hypothetical, one doesn’t have to be over 45 to be on the popular ballot for President. Anyone meeting the constitutional requirements can be. (The Anderson per curiam didn’t actually reach that point, as you say. But my hypothetical assumes it.)

But the electoral college ballot is totally different. How do you explain Chiafalo v. Washington? The Constitution imposes no requirement whatsoever that a candidate for President have received the majority of the popular votes in the state in order to be eligible to receive the state’s electoral votes. In requiring Presidential Elector Chiafalo to vote a specific way, Washington imposed a completely extra-constitutional qualification requirement on Chafalo’s ability to vote. Yet the Supreme Court held that Washington could do this. Chiafolo stands for precisely the proposition that states can closely control the electoral college ballot including imposing requirements in addition to the constitutional ones on who the state’s Presidential electors are permitted to vote for.

[Josh R]

Chiafolo did not involve an additional qualification.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The people have no constitutional right to have their votes translate directly into electoral votes, and no right to have the candidate they voted for actually be elected President.

Sure. Not a right. Something better. A sovereign power. That means government cannot constrain it at all. The Executive cannot constrain it. The Congress cannot constrain it. The Supreme Court cannot constrain it. And the Constitution itself cannot constrain it. That is originalist American constitutionalism, pure, simple, and explicitly stated.

That means that everything in the Constitution, and in election law jurisprudence, must properly be construed on behalf of protecting the joint popular sovereignty of citizens, while they exercise their constituent power by voting.

To short circuit that consideration by looking to legal precedent ought to be unavailing. To look directly to the Constitution is better, but still not adequate, as founder James Wilson wrote:

There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable . . . Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions . . . This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions.

Of course I wish—no doubt along with others—that need to keep citing that bit by Wilson would not come up so often. Alas, the subject of American constitutionalism as the founders understood it has not been much taught during our lifetimes. So one misconstrual after another shows up in these comments, and forces re-use of Wilson's spot-on and authoritative summary to rebut the mistakes.

One way to ease that repetitiveness, of course, would be to stop pretending that original public meaning is what ought to control modern jurisprudence. Then you could consign Wilson's take to the dustbin of history, just as American legal precedent began to do even before the Civil War.

But if you insist on originalism, you have to cope with Wilson, because he was an acknowledged leader among the founders on the subject of American constitutionalism.

At the Philadelphia Convention, the most influential draft of the Constitution—reported by the Committee of Detail—was, by the way, written in Wilson's hand. The delegates had adjourned their activities for nearly two weeks to await that report. Then, with that in hand, they proceeded to tweak it into the final draft, which the delegates signed.

The mainstream choice is thus to stop pretending originalism, or to stick with Wilson. The other alternative, as always, is to advocate the anti-Federalist positions. But those are not properly originalist either. It remains peculiar to see so many VC commenters who assert originalism, while advocating anti-Federalism, but that paradox too is part of American history.

[ReaderY]

There are two problems with your argument.

The first problem is that the Constitutions explicitly assigns the power to elect the president to a college of electors, not the people. Unless constrained by state legislatures, presidential electors can vote for anyone they please. Moreover, the appointment of presidential electors is assigned to state legislatures. A popular election is simply a choice a state legislatures makes.

The second and more fundamental problem is your argument is so general that, if valid, it sweeps up all the federal government’s other unelected offices. Your argument holds equally well for a claim that the constitution requires an popularly elected judiciary.

After all, if the abstract proposition that “the people are the sole source of sovereignty” means they must have control over who the country’s officers are, they ought to have as much right to control the judiciary as the President. It seems to me that if you concede the constitution doesn’t require an elected judiciary, then you’ve conceded that your argument doesn’t really hold any water as to the actual operations of how government officials are chosen. There’s no reason it should hold any more water for the President either.

In particular, if the people are the sole source of sovereignty, then it would stand to reason that they ought to ratify constitutional amendments. In this regard, it’s highly noteworthy that there are two permissible ways to ratify a constitutional amendment, and aplebiscite isn’t one of them. If the people don’t even get any direct say in ratifying the constitution itself, the idea that they have to have a direct say in all government offices becomes nothing more than a bunch of nice-sounding rhetoric that requires an echo chamber to believe.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A popular election is simply a choice a state legislatures makes.

But not one the state legislature has plenary power to make, however it pleases. Proper exercise of that power requires deference to the voters, with an eye to maximize their capacity to determine the election outcome. And the proper judge of whether the legislature does that is not to be found in any branch of government, but in the jointly sovereign people themselves.

[ReaderY]

Saying it’s ao doesn’t make it so.

Trump v. Anderson acknowledged both that a state legislature can simply appoint the electors itself, and also that, if it chooses to have a popular ballot, it has no obligation to ensure that the state’s presidential Electors follow the popular ballot choice.

Again, you haven’t explained why Supreme Court Justices can be exempt for your supposed rule. Or cabinet officers. Or Senators until the 20th Century. Presidential elections are a compromise between the way the House of Representatives was elected and the way the Senate originally was, although the method of choosing a President is unique with features that bever existed for either.

If you don’t like it, pass a constitutional amendment, as was done with the Senate.

If Presidents had a custom of holding an advisory popular opinion poll to help them decide who to appoint to the Supreme Court or the Cabinet, simply doing so for a number of years wouldn’t translate into a right to have these offices popularly elected. What state legislatures have done regarding Presidential elections is no different.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY — Your commentary is all over the place.

What I say does not make anything so. What you say does not make anything so. James Wilson did make what he said so, at the founding.

The difference between you, and me, and James Wilson, is that he was there, and he did it. And then shortly afterwards, Wilson explained what he and his compatriots had done. And that explanation, on parchment or paper, became a historical survival. Which is how we know about it.

I understand that somewhere you got an explanation of American constitutionalism that predisposes you to not like Wilson's explanation. I suspect it is because Wilson (and other founders) had a harder task than your civics teacher (or whoever) did. The founders had to wrestle—like many others of their era, but few living in the present era—with the fundamental question about how states and governments came to be.

Their studies turned up an answer to that fundamental question which contains an ugly truth. It is a truth unsoothing to civics teachers and their pupils—that post-Enlightenment nation states are as a matter of history founded on sovereign power, and sovereign power is based on uncontrollable force, wielded more-or-less continuously.

Sovereigns and governments are not always the same. But it is always the uncontrollable force of a sovereign which constrains, or does not constrain, the powers of a government. In American constitutionalism, sovereigns and governments are never the same. The American sovereign is always a joint popular sovereign superior to not only its governments, but to its constitutions as well, as Wilson said.

Thus, no amount of blather about textualism counts at all, unless it happens to be blather based on founding era context, and not on present-minded context. That includes your demands to rationalize political systems in ways which make things look tidy to you, and pleasant to civics teachers.

It was at least partly to keep things pleasant that those lessons were structured to exclude the reality of unlimited sovereign power, and to present in its place the less-threatening notion of a limited constitution. And then to encourage acceptance of that constitution as if it were sovereign—the very error Wilson warned against.

Doing it that way naturally led many to suppose constitutions amounted to sovereigns, maybe bland sovereigns, preferable to the ferocious kind. Which is where you find yourself. That is not so. It has never been so. Wilson explained it. You do not like it.

What the founders did in the past is what happened then. What they did not do is also what happened then. All that the study of history can hope to deliver are sometimes-accurate inferences about what happened in the past.

Hopes to mine those inferences for guidance about present-day controversies will always be folly. Nobody in the long-ago past knew anything about today. That not only disqualifies as wisdom anything they might have counseled, it also makes it impossible to infer what they might have counseled. Nobody alive has capacity to do that.

You and I ought to try to live with that realistically. That means we ought to do it without pretense to extra authority we hope to get by citing a supposed past as our substitute for the role of God in pre-Enlightenment politics. That seems to me to be what you are trying to do.

[ReaderY]

Also, this isn’t originalism. It’s textualism. It’s what the text of the constitutionalism plainly says.

One could with equal echo-chamber bombast and frankly equal support in the constitution’s text claim that the framers of the constitution intended America to be a great country, and to achieve this they necessarily intended the great people to rule. They created a constitution of, by, and for the PEOPLE, not the nobodies. One could with equally flowery rhetoric proclaim that this whole democracy nonsense is an 18th Century anachronism that needs to be discarded to get at the Constitution’s true meaning.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Also, this isn’t originalism. It’s textualism. It’s what the text of the constitutionalism plainly says.

Nonsense and question begging. What the Constitution plainly says is the question to be answered. Not the answer to be presumed.

To insist, "I know what it says because I can read it," presumes others do not read it otherwise. Worse, it presumes the founders themselves did not read it otherwise.

Still worse than that, it presumes the founders themselves read the Constitution in the same context you rely upon, which is a present-minded context about which they knew nothing. That context lay more than 2 centuries in their unknowable future.

You can be certain that no founder relied on anything like your presumptions about the meaning of American constitutionalism. Just as you can be certain that you know nothing about any reading of American constitutionalism which might occur in the year 2225.

And worst of all, you have evidence written down contemporaneously with the founding—from the founder most influential and most respected by the others on that question—and you insist on contradicting it on a basis you have simply made up, because you think it sounds right, for no reason that you have articulated.

[ReaderY]

Popular-ballot elections with pledged electors whose names were never revealed to the voters, which you appear to claim are a constitutional requirement, didn’t even exist until the 20th century.

More fundamentally, the statement you quoted previously would, if it were applicable to selecting Presidents, also apply equally to selecting judges, cabinet officers, senators, and constitutional amendments, and the ratification of the constitution itself. Yet none of these were done by popular ballots. The original constitution required a popular ballot for the House of Representatives and nothing else. A subsequent amendment extended that to the Senate and nothing else. That’s as far as it goes.

Some of the Founders wanted a popular ballot for President. The Founders disagreed about many things, and you can probably find one who supported almost any position. Your ability to find someone favoring your position proves nothing about what the Constitution as adopted, whose text was often a compromise between differing opinions including people who agreed with you and people who didn’t, means.

[ReaderY]

More fundamentally, the Wilson quote you gave doesn’t say anything about elections of any kind, let alone Presidential elections. You chose on your own to decide that the quote has something to do with that subject. You have no evidence for this. Your quote provides no more evidence of Wilson’s opinion on how Presidents should be selected then it does regarding his opinion on how cabinet officers or judges should be selected.

Or, for that matter, Wilson’s opinion on abortion. It seems to me that your efforts to roll up Wilson’s opinion, smoke it, and puff out a supposed Wilson position on Presidential elector appointments you claim to discern from the haze of his vague, general statements on popular sovereignty is just as speculative as trying to use the same statements to puff out a supposed Wilson position on abortion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY — You keep making up hypotheticals about what I might argue. I have advocated none of the conclusions you attribute to me, and oppose them all as unjustifiable misinterpretations of my views.

Also? Wilson was not an outlier among the founders. His allies at the Constitutional Convention included at least Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, and Washington. And of course Jefferson, who was not at the Convention, but honored Wilson's ideas when Jefferson recast them in his own language to express the central theme of the Declaration.

Wilson was of course appointed to the Committee of Detail because the Convention at large expected him to summarize their contributions, which Wilson demonstrably did. The draft Wilson wrote closely matches the final version the delegates signed. It was Wilson who added, "We the People," to begin the Constitution. Had Wilson been an outlier on American constitutionalism, why would Washington have appointed him a member of the first Supreme Court of the United States?

You simply do not recognize founding era American constitutionalism when you see it. I think that if you were required to say where your alternative views come from, you would have no idea what to answer.

[ReaderY]

I am just pointing out that the Wilson quote you put in bold simply never said that states have to use popular ballots to appoint presidential electors. It simply isn’t evidence for what you claim it’s evidence for. Moreover, Wilson supported the constitution as it came out, including the compromise by which each state legislature gets to determine how its presidential electors get appointed as it sees fit.

As an FYI, the 23rd Amendment, the most recent constitutional amendment on the subject of the electoral college, said that the seat of goverment’s electors shall be appointed in such manner as Congress may direct. Congress, just like a state legislature, gets to appoint the electors itself if it wants to. Why did this amendment reiterate and double down on the idea that the people have no inherent right to have any direct say in who the President is?

[Moderation4ever]

To all the steak eating, beer drinking he men out there a new study finds that the real go getter and power hungry are the vegetarians.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/vegetarian-power-meat-new-study-b2766387.html

[Frank Drackman]

More just plain "Hungry", I'm the opposite, a "Meat-a-narian", I haven't eaten a Vegetable voluntarily since I was 12. Oh wait, does Corn count as a Vegetable? (I get most of mine in Liquid form) am I like the "Vegetarians" who still eat Eggs and wear leather shoes??
and normal BP, Cholesterol, only medication I take is an 81mg Aspirin (just Willow Bark) to stave off the CAD and Colon Cancer.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

If you eat that much meat one wonders how you ever have a BM. Left thinking it must be a painful experience.

[Swede425]

One wonders if you don't think about his BMs all the time.
Absolute weirdo.

[Moderation4ever]

No. Anytime I hear or see someone that only eats meat I wonder about gut health. I subscribe to the idea that you get plenty of fiber and be a regular guy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Between the carnivore diet and a vegan diet, the former is certainly healthier; It's very difficult indeed to get a nutritionally complete diet from just plant sources, but fairly easy from just meat, so long as you eat organ meats, too, and get the majority of your calories from fat. I'd rather be constipated than run out of B12.

But we're omnivores, not carnivores, as one look at our teeth confirms, and even actual carnivores tend to eat at least some vegetable matter, so anybody who thinks a carnivore diet is in any way "natural" for humans is almost as wrong as vegans.

[Bob from Ohio]

"almost as wrong as vegans"

Glad you included "almost". No one is as wrong as vegans.

[Bwaaah]

"gut health"

I used to work in the nutritional supplements business. The industry invented the term "gut health" in order to push a bunch of poorly indicated products such as "probiotics" and "colonic cleanses," all intended to combat so-called "toxins" and to "promote digestive health." There are tidbits of science there tucked into loads of pseudoscience.

Manufacturers would ship us live culture probiotics marked "Keep refrigerated" because they contain live microbes that tend to die off at room temperature. Fun fact: they'd ship us that stuff via UPS ground in the height of summer without any cooling or special packing. We'd immediately put the stuff [already died off] into a refrigerator, and when we'd ship it, we'd throw in an ice pack to keep it cool. But, yes, we'd sell the product knowing it had been mishandled. We routinely bullshitted our customers because the whole industry is built on people who bullshit themselves first. Any relationship to medical science is convenient, incidental, and broadly overstated.

I made a point of hiding away from customers in that business because there was nothing I could honestly say that would advance the interests of anybody in the room.

[LexAquilia]

The literature on probiotics has always been weak. Many of these strains come from research that was done decades ago. These bacteria have about a 72 hour lifespan, do you know many generations of bacterial strains have passed since the study that surfaced any health effects? They aren't the same anymore.

Secondly, the literature has always shown that as soon as you stop taking them the any beneficial effects wear off. Meaning you are not making a difference to the bacterial ecosystem in your digestive track.

Thirdly, you see terms like Billions of CFU's (Colony Forming Units), and think "wow, that's a lot". But compared to the population of bacteria in your digestive track alone that's like a drop of water in a 100L drum.

Fourth, there are only two known ways to add new species of bacteria that colonize your gut. Both involve human feces, i.e. fecal matter transplants. Either freeze dried in one end, or not freeze dried up the other end.

Finally, the way to influence your gut microbiota is through diet, prebiotic supplements or prebiotic foods. Further, you can even selectively target strains of bacteria present in your microbiome by your food choices. Your digestive tract has bacteria all along it, but your digestive tract isn't a uniform ecosystem. E.g. some parts of your tract have access to more oxygen than others, some are completely anerobic. To target bacteria that are often found early in your tract you go with shorter-chained complex carbs, like oligosaccharides (FOS, GOS, even XOS). These break down quicker and ferment faster. While longer-chained complex carbs like resistant starch (potato starch is a good one) or some forms of Inulin (be careful here, not many sellers know the difference between the short chained (typically labeled as FOS) & longer chained inulin (typically labeled as 'inulin') take longer to breakdown and thus reach bacteria further down your digestive tract.
Then there's stuff like psyllium husk which has a moderate prebiotic effect but works by making all the down to the descending colon and adds bulk by building up mucus there.

Also, regarding meat. There have been some studies that show that your gut bacteria can use proteins from meat for fermentation. You're not starving your gut bacteria by eating just meat.

[Frank Drackman]

Regular as Old Faithful (OK, I don't go on the hour)
and I do get some fruit in my Diet, I eat the Cherry with every Old Fashioned.

[hobie]

I absolutely loathe the term 'hangry'. Does anyone actually become furious when they're peckish?

[Krayt]

Surly is a fun hyperbolization.

A full belly contents.

[hobie]

I think the most I could concede being when hungry is despondent. If people are angry when they are hungry, wouldn't that make restaurant work a dangerous profession? No. Because people aren't angry for having an empty stomach

[Brett Bellmore]

I just become more inclined to buy foodstuffs, which is why I try to make a point of not grocery shopping when hungry; I over-buy.

[David Nieporent]

Does anyone actually become furious when they're peckish?

Yes. Have you never met someone under the age of 12?

[hobie]

I'd say they're whiny. When/if I see a kid gnashing their teeth...I'll reconsider

[Ridgeway]

Cranky is a better word than angry, but hungry and cranky don't portmanteau well in pronounceable English.

[hobie]

Regarding the as of yet unexplained Israeli bombing of civilian Evin prison in Tehran, among the mass casualties are:

"About 100 transgender inmates are missing after their section of the prison was flattened..."

Even in a authoritarian state, wrapped in strict Islam orthodoxy, where they throw trans into prisons for being trans, where the last thing you would want to be is trans...even under all that...trans ideation endures.

So you see it is not a choice. Putting aside all objective evidence, let's presume the bigoted hayseed assertion that these people are mentally ill. Wouldn't you agree that all this antitrans legislation is punishment or torment of mentally ill people for having a mental illness?

[LexAquilia]

If they're mentally ill, why is the burden on the whole of society to treat their illness and it's not a private treatment between the patient and their doctor?

[hobie]

They've tried to get treatment, but the state banned them from doing that. Here's an idea...how about we just butt out and leave them alone?

So what vulnerable, mentally ill group of children is next on MAGA's target list? Autistics? Use state power to make sure them autistics don't get a cake, or bathroom, or play sports, or seek medical treatment?

[Ska]

Joking about being autistic is de rigueur among the same people who think calling someone a retard is one step away from a criminal act.

Fuck everyone and their discretionary performative outrage.

[hobie]

I could have easily used 'bulimics' or 'trypophobes'. But your thinking is so shallow that you figure my posting a hypothetical means I hate them. Jeez...you guys are something else

[LexAquilia]

>They've tried to get treatment, but the state banned them from doing that. Here's an idea...how about we just butt out and leave them alone?

I'll be happy to as soon as the State allows compassionate sexual orientation affirming care.

[minus the clever name]

Let's not avoid Dylan Mulvaney. Sick, unattractive, perverted through and through, yet making money off it, courted by the 'haves' and in short doing well. And you say 'treat him nice' !!!!

[Malika the Maiz]

“I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social late Sunday stateside. “The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of complete and total disruption and chaos.”

Nobody tell this guy the origin of the party he currently heads.

[hobie]

Poor Elon, he and his products completely shunned for life by the left. And now that he's besmirked the Orange Caligula, shunned by the right as well. So where does he think he's gonna find anyone to vote for his candidates?

[Commenter_XY]

Elon doesn't seem to be hurting, Arthur. 😉

[Bwaaah]

Clingers gonna cling.

[Nelson]

Sure, you buffoon. Elon suddenly became erratic five weeks ago, not … well, as long as we’ve known him.

The man is a genius, but definitely riding the thin edge of the genius/madness line. He’s always been like that. Howard Hughes for the tech age.

[Nelson]

I just noticed I didn’t identify Trump as the buffoon, although I’m sure anyone not in the cult knew that’s what I meant.

[Commenter_XY]

Elon Musk is once in a century, maybe two centuries occurrence. He is brilliant, flamboyant, and somewhat flawed. A great representative sample of humanity at it's intellectual and generative height, and a not a few lower points as well. He has certainly made his contribution to the perpetuation of our human species, lol.

He is greater than Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller put together. He has accomplished much. It is astounding, starting with PayPal; space, neuroscience, EV transportation, satellite communications, social media, AI, and the list goes on.

All of that said, even Elon Musk has said that true insight and innovation are a young persons game. Elon Musk is not young. Is he 'aging out'? That isn't meant as a an insult, but more a question of biology and what Elon has said in the past.

An alternative explanation of what we see: Elon has the money to fund his political POV...what is 2B to Elon? A pittance. He is an American citizen and he wants to talk about his POV in the public square; it is perfectly legitimate, so long as it is transparent.

I've serous doubt a new 'third' political party actually gets started. It takes a lot of resource at the precinct level, as you know. And sustained commitment.

Elon has problems to solve, nevermind the politics. Share price is down YTD, and he is a domestic US manufacturer. This point in time in America is a golden opportunity for Tesla.

Elon Musk absolutely rides the edge of the madness/genius line. Thank God he is an American. 😉

[apedad]

Paul Clement to Defend Maryland Judges From DOJ Lawsuit

The Justice Department last week sued all of the US district judges in Maryland over a standing order that blocked the immediate deportation of detained persons who filed a habeas petition.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/paul-clement-to-defend-maryland-judges-from-doj-lawsuit

IANAL so how does this work?

Why doesn't DOJ just appeal the judges' decisions instead of suing the judges?

[hobie]

You know that thing MAGA despises: lawfare. Well guess what.

[minus the clever name]

You write like you are talking to yourself. I have no idea what your point is.

[Bwaaah]

Indeed, he does. He is. His audience finds him/himself strikingly sharp-witted, and impressive.

[tylertusta]

Why doesn't DOJ just appeal the judges' decisions instead of suing the judges?

My guess is that it's a political decision. The DOJ files a ridiculous- but not quite frivolous- lawsuit that rubs the Maryland bench's noses in the illegality of the standing order and gives the appellate court an opportunity to weigh in like they should have months ago. The Trump administration gets press, the Maryland bench gets increasingly overwhelmed with habeas petitions that they have to handle, and eventually the district court's rule is removed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Paul Clement to Defend Maryland Judges From DOJ Lawsuit"

Continues the side switch, I see.

Mad about not getting a SCOTUS seat I guess.

[David Nieporent]

Or, he has principles. Something you wouldn't even understand.

[Bob from Ohio]

My main principle is loyalty. He made his career on one side and now has switched to the other.

Third time at least this year. Once is happenstance, second is coincidence, 3rd is enemy action.

[Josh R]

Loyalty to what? Trump? The Constitution and the rule of law?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Loyalty to what? "

The side that hired him for decades, made him famous in the legal community and bought him the good life.

[Josh R]

I see. The GOP rather than the rule of law. Yuch.

[Bob from Ohio]

You may like the current power hungry juristocracy but it is no way the "rule of law".

[Sarcastr0]

'The side.'

Openly not caring about rule of law, and immediately after accusing others of not caring about rule of law.

Not many suck as hard as you do.

[Bob from Ohio]

I was accusing him of a factual error, thinking our juristocracy is the "rule of law".

[Sarcastr0]

Your assumption that everyone is motivated by the same venal petty partisanship you are is not a factual error.

One cannot falsify your projection that everyone is unprincipled and dishonest.

[minus the clever name]

Bob,you have trampled the law about the meanings of words.

“This lesson, in a nutshell, says: the abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word, indeed finds in it the fertile soil in which to hide and grow and get ready, so much so that the latent potential of the totalitarian poison can be ascertained, as it were, by observing the symptom of the public abuse of language. The degradation, too, of man through man, alarmingly evident in the acts of physical violence committed by all tyrannies (concentration camps, torture), has its beginning, certainly much less alarmingly, at that almost imperceptible moment when the word loses its dignity.”
― Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power

WE know you want to be the dictator of what things mean, who can labeled, etc. but you show your hand and it makes you look TERRIBLE

[minus the clever name]

You just insulted all 7 swing states 🙂

[apedad]

Loyalty is a two-way street Bob (and BTW Trump doesn't give a fuck about you).

What you are is a sycophant.

[Bob from Ohio]

No politician gives a fuck about regular people.

What did Trump do to Clement personally?

[ducksalad]

"What did Trump do to Clement personally?"

This one is obvious.

Trump is attacking and punishing law firms for representing people or causes he does not like. Clement spent a large part of his career (like the period 1/2009-1/2017) representing people and causes a president did not like. He has enough self-awareness to realize Obama could have (but didn't) do that to him, and enough integrity to believe rules aren't just for the other side.

[Bob from Ohio]

Clements was forced out at a law firm by people like you, no government action needed.

You are still talking generalities in any event, not personal harm.

[Sarcastr0]

You're still assuming the only real motivation is revenge.

[minus the clever name]

I would argue against you in court --- and win-- that you see only suits against lawsuits against those you like and against those you don't like, Well who institutes a lawsuit against those they like 🙂
[ sound of gavel ]

[David Nieporent]

Why doesn't DOJ just appeal the judges' decisions instead of suing the judges?

DOJ is suing for the headlines, not because this is a serious issue that merits a lawsuit. But if it were, appealing would be ineffective; the order in question puts a temporary stay of less than 2 business days on any habeas petition by an alien. There's no opportunity to appeal that before it expires.

[John F. Carr]

An appeal could not be decided quickly enough.

In my state the government could file an original action in the Supreme Judicial Court, which has supervisory authority over inferior courts. The rules of the Supreme Court of the United States do not anticipate direct requests for relief. "To justify the granting of any such writ, the petition must show that the writ will be in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court." Rule 20.

[Longtobefree]

Because they are not dealing with a court decision.
Rather they are dealing with a court declaration they will grant injunctions in advance, regardless of the facts in any specific case brought before them.

[minus the clever name]

But facts are NOT the relevant aim of law. IF I hear someone in the lake yell 'Help!!" it's true he might be faking, I might have misheard but if he dies it is on me for being a heartless fool hiding behind 'facts'. The law here wants facts to have their day so it MUST ban injunctions whose sole motive is to stall justice and the facts

[LexAquilia]

Is it weird that Epstein The Innocent would kill himself before he was released due to all that lack of evidence? The same evidence that the NY Judge barred from being shared?

[David Nieporent]

TF are you talking about? There is a ton of evidence. It's just all against Epstein, not against imaginary gangs of pedophiles.

[LexAquilia]

I just read through https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew and he makes a lot of good arguments to your point, with receipts, regarding Epstein.

Occam's Razor and mea culpa.

[thenotoriousrbg]

Epstein wouldn't have gotten such a sweetheart deal back in 2009 if he didn't have dirt on someone.

at the very least, Epstein and Maxwell didn't personally abduct all those girls. they had to have been working with others. Epstein would have kept dirt on those others, as mutually assured destruction.

also isn't it public knowledge that Epstein had some of the girls give sexual favors to his guests? plus how Prince Andrew was implicated in all this.. plus all the irregularities with Epstein's "suicide" (the malfunctioning cameras, the cellmate, the two sleeping guards, the first attempt and subsequent removal from suicide watch.)

no, it's likely that some powerful people from DNC, GOP and industry were all implicated, and it was too damaging to everyone involved to let him live to rat them out.

[David Nieporent]

1) They didn't abduct anyone, personally or otherwise.
2) No, it is not in fact public knowledge that Epstein had some of the girls give sexual favors to his guests. Or at least not any underaged girls.
3) Prisons suck. People die and/or kill themselves in prison all the time, unfortunately.

[Longtobefree]

Plenty of evidence against him, just not any others - - - - -

[Sarcastr0]

From a discord of mine:
Do we still need stories about an aspirational immigrant who's so devoted to his adopted country that he regularly puts himself in danger to help even those who fear and distrust him, and who's primary antagonist is an egotistical billionaire?

Yes, obviously. I hope they do it justice.

[Armchair]

So... a story celebrating Elon Musk?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Supreme Court is in recess but is still formally in session. Once upon a time, this was not true, and individual justices played more of a role in handing down opinions.

They have handed down significant orders during the summer in recent terms. The only scheduled things coming up, however, are some summer order lists (three) that are usually low-interest housekeeping measures.

Josh Blackman's favorite justice, Amy Coney Barrett, has an autobiography due to be released in September.

(Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution )

Amazon cites that an audio version is forthcoming, too.

[David Nieporent]

Josh Blackman's favorite justice, Amy Coney Barrett, has an autobiography due to be released in September.

We all know that, because he was breathlessly telling us, repeatedly, how she had gotten a book advance but hadn't published the book.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A few people here wisely avoid him.

[hobie]

I think Blackman is largely upset because, like Sandra Day O'Connor before her, Republican presidents cannot reliably appoint a female justice that ruthlessly accepts ideological indoctrination. Women are empathetic creatures (with maybe the exception of Aileen Cannon). They want to help people and not crush all the time. Drives Blackman batty.

[minus the clever name]

Actually, you are more wrong by the same standard. I can easily show that you are wrong.

Just two examples, about Sotomayor

1) she stated that bumpstocks can enable AR-15s to fire 800 rounds per second
2) During Covid : “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.”

At the time Sotomayor spoke, fewer than 5,000 people under the age of 18 were hospitalized in the US with confirmed or suspected cases of Covid-19; the reported number of child hospitalizations was 4,464 on Thursday, the day before the hearing

THIS IS INDEFENSIBLE AND HATEFUL

Back again, who can forget : giving hormones to 'trans kids' is like taking aspirin <==== She said that with a straight smug face

1'44" mark on this
https://youtu.be/uM_RAmVP3PY

PURE INDOCTRINATION

[hobie]

THIS IS INDEFENSIBLE AND HATEFUL
PURE INDOCTRINATION

I'm gonna set aside the fact that MAGA's incessant torment of gay people and their families is also very much hate.

But where do you get the notion that a justice's hyperbole is HATE and INDOCTRINATION?

[minus the clever name]

hobie, are you gay? In the interest of honesty (which so rarely you actually model yourself)

[David Nieporent]

Sonia Sotomayor has been on the Supreme Court for sixteen years, and these are literally the only two things our (other) fake academic knows about her.

[Brett Bellmore]

Women are a small proportion of the candidate pool for federal judge, smaller for Supreme court justice. If you prioritize lack of a Y chromosome in picking a justice, you're going to have to sacrifice SOMETHING. As true when Republicans do it as when Democrats do it.

Democrats sacrifice competence, Republicans sacrifice ideology.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett lives in a land of perfect meritocracy, where everyone has some kind of number above their heads detailing there level of merit.

He also thinks merit and competence are the same thing, because all threshold metrics can be optimized.

I sure hope that wasn't his attitude as an engineer!

[Brett Bellmore]

On the contrary, I live in a world where nothing is perfect, but you can get closer to perfection if you're actually TRYING to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing.

While I don't think merit and competence are the same thing, competence is a component of merit.

And not having a Y chromosome isn't.

You're trying to make this absurdly vague to create the illusion that you have a point. I have an actual point: Being a woman is not an element of merit, and if you insist the candidate be a woman, you have dramatically reduced the candidate pool along a metric that is not merit related. This reduces the probable merit of the candidates you select in the end.

Your next resort, I know, is to claim that merit is a threshold matter, and once you cross the threshold you're free to choose on entirely irrelevant characteristics without cost.

Don't quit your day job, nobody is laughing with you when you make that claim.

[Sarcastr0]

The idea that you can't be trying for competence if you aim for someone other than a white guy only works if

1) the meritocracy works perfectly, and
2) competence is a continuum not a threshold.

If 1) isn't true, then the perceived top candidate is not necessarily the actual top one. With the top pick smeared among a number of strong contenders. So straining for the bestest doesn't matter as much.

If 2) isn't true, then you have a set of sufficiently competent candidates, each essentially identical if you stick to your 'merit is a single variable' system. So again, you don't need to strain for the bestest.

And as a bonus, for your objection to matter even if you ignore the previous 2 issues, you must have a white guy be the bestest. That's begging the question.

Your making some silly assumptions about meritocracy so you can be mad it's not always white guys.

[Brett Bellmore]

And there you go, with the whole "Merit is a threshold matter, passing the bar is enough qualification for the Supreme court." argument. Entirely predictable, and entirely laughable.

[Sarcastr0]

So what counts as merit? It's a prediction of performance in some capacity or another.
That's a nearly impossible ask to get accurately beyond a certain threshold.
Believing there's one best candidate that's you'll hit if only you try hard enough is not realistic.

What actually drives meritocracy is the perception of *fairness*, not actual outcomes. Everyone's got to go through the same process or else it's just not fair.
Equality of opportunity!

That should be the starting point of the discussion if we were honest about our experience with merit based reviews.

[tylertusta]

Someone attacked Border Patrol officers in Texas:

A man with a rifle and tactical gear opened fire on law enforcement officers Monday morning at a Border Patrol facility in McAllen, Texas, before being shot and killed during an exchange of fire with Border Patrol and local police, the Department of Homeland Security told CNN.

“This morning an individual opened fire at the entrance of the United States Border Patrol sector annex in McAllen, Texas,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/07/us/border-patrol-mcallen-shooting

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder why they would do that. n

[Brett Bellmore]

We've got people on the left claiming the ICE are America's Gestapo, you've got to expect some idiots to take the rhetoric seriously and act on it.

[tylertusta]

It hasn't escaped me that the left gets reaaaaal quiet about "stochastic terrorism" when it's politically inconvenient for them.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Wait until all the facts are in. What is it with MAGA tools and the race to post when things are still sketchy? If you're so sure about how the facts will come out, why the stampede?

2. What do you want to hear? 'don't shoot at people. That's bad.'

3. I actually agree with you that stochastic terrorism is largely a speculative/academic matter in current days.

[Bob from Ohio]

" If you're so sure about how the facts will come out, why the stampede?"

Heal yourself, physician

Budget cuts caused the Texas flood deaths!

[Sarcastr0]

A fair criticism,

While I'm unaware of any new facts to come out in that, I would do well to wait a tick just in case.

[Bwaaah]

Budget cuts caused the Texas flood deaths!

[LexAquilia]

>1. Wait until all the facts are in. What is it with MAGA tools and the race to post when things are still sketchy? If you're so sure about how the facts will come out, why the stampede?

Just like Sacastr0 did when he danced on the graves of those dead White Christian children earlier this morning!

---
All snark aside, you're probably one of the most disgusting individuals on this board. Your rhetoric is shameful and subversive.

[minus the clever name]

How about Logic. ST is illogical

The claim is simple. Hate, disgust, vilification, and heated rhetoric all cause stochastic terrorism. “When Fox personality Jesse Watters says ‘They’ve declared war on us and now it’s game on,’ it’s not just talk. It’s stochastic terrorism,” they say.

As is obvious to any Realist, the constant hate, vilification, disgust, and heated rhetoric spewed by the woke doesn’t cause “stochastic terrorism.” Thus Nelson spinning in a circle and calling his enemies bad people has no terroristic effect, and cannot produce violence.

SEE UTTERLLY SELF-CONTRADICTING

[Krayt]

You are correct. It didn't take long before people complained Trump cuts caused lack of proper notification of the Texas floods.

What is it with Democrats?

Your observation is accurate. You just refuse to apply it to all "don't let an emergency go to waste" politicians, which is to say, all of 'em.

Maybe there's a larger systemic problem with the power hungry.

[Kazinski]

Here are more facts:

"Federal prosecutors say 11 individuals orchestrated a coordinated strike intended to kill federal officers in Alvarado, Texas.

The group used fireworks and anti-ICE graffiti as bait to lure officers out, then opened fire from two sniper positions, one hidden in the woods, the other across the street.

Authorities recovered 12 sets of body armor, a jammed AR-style rifle, nine other weapons, radios, and Faraday bags to block tracking."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/alvarado-ice-facility-attack-11-charged-in-ambush-on-ice-officers-officials-say/ar-AA1I9dod

[thenotoriousrbg]

I'll admit that sounds exactly like stochastic terrorism. I expect it to escalate, as well. the Right has gotten too used to the gun-hating, ineffectual peaceniks of the old Left.

gun violence takes roughly two things: 1) anger, 2) guns. the Left is seriously angry about ICE, and guns are cool now, apparently.

I'm the peace and good vibes kind of leftist, but not all of us are so reasonable unfortunately. and there are bad apples in every bunch.

[hobie]

It's Texas. There's high-powered weapons and tactical gear involved. Even tyler can put together these pieces and figure out the ideology

[tylertusta]

You may feel free to jump to conclusions before the facts are in.

I'm content with waiting.

[Bwaaah]

Why miss the opportunity to "connect the dots" with speculation you can build atop?

I appreciate your more "conservative" approach. (Remember when it meant _that_? That approach works as well as ever.)

[ducksalad]

they?

[tylertusta]

Perhaps Michael is not assuming their gender?

[ducksalad]

That's just the sort of delicate respect for feelings that's made us all love Michael P. What a sensitive guy.

[Michael P]

Did you mean Michael Ejercito?

Your attention to detail, and rent-free provision of living space in your head, are why we (yadda yadda).

[ducksalad]

Local news reports here are still a bit unclear.

One part of an article says he was "from Michigan", but another part of says he was reported missing from a home in Weslaco, which is just a few miles away.

Apparently the car he was in had "Cordis Die" scrawled on the side, which AFAICT is the name of a fictional gang in a computer game.

It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

[tylertusta]

This is why I try to refrain from speculating on an event like this for at least a day- though I admit that I sometimes can't restrain myself.

A lot is unknown, rumors are running around, people with political axes to grind are going to say whatever confirms their biases. What experience has taught me is that people with screws loose enough to try to attack armed officers are unlikely to be poster children for any political party or political agenda.

[minus the clever name]

It is wrong to shoot and kill government agents. There, no spin whatsoever.

[tylertusta]

You will find no disagreement from me: murder is bad, full Jackson stop.

But what I'm getting at is the propensity for people to jump on rumors for whatever the outrage of the day is. The facts are not out yet rumors on who did it, why, and what that person's politics are are often the first things people talk about.

[John F. Carr]

Four more Massachusetts police officers have been banned from law enforcement work.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/07/03/4-more-police-officers-decertified-post-commission/

One of the officers was big news in 2018. State police officer Matthew Sheehan shot at a group of ATV riders illegally using a highway, injuring one. It was the kind of shot that prosecutors ordinarily consider legitimate. Then the Boston Globe uncovered the officer's social media posts and found him guilty of racism. He was suspended for political incorrectness. Then Suffolk County elected a progressive prosecutor. He was charged with assault for the shooting. He pleaded guilty this year. His criminal record will be cleared if he completes 150 hours community service and stays out of trouble for three years. But he won't be eligible to return to duty.

Other career-ending offenses include tipping off suspects about surveillance, secretly videotaping naked women, and being habitually drunk on duty.

In the old days bad cops would often be reinstated by an arbitrator. Decertification makes an officer legally unemployable and the department is not allowed to rehire him.

[tylertusta]

I'm very happy that we're no longer in the old days when it comes to handling bad cops.

[Nelson]

Goddamnit, I have to agree with Tyler. Like agreeing with Misek, it gives one the heebie-jeebies.

[apedad]

But current ICE actions are OK?

[tylertusta]

Which action(s) are you referring to?

[apedad]

Arresting law abiding people (look it up yourself).

[Bob from Ohio]

"law abiding people "

You are not "law abiding" if you are violating immigration laws.

If you meant non-criminals, they are still subject to immigration detention and deportation.

[apedad]

No, I actually mean US citizens and valid green card holders being detained.

[Brett Bellmore]

Obviously all law enforcement actions suffer from some base error rate, and the only way to drive that rate to 0.0 is to cease enforcement.

So, I've no doubt that some non-zero number of US citizens and immigrants with no legal issues at all have been detailed. It's regrettable, but not enforcing immigration laws would be MORE regrettable.

[Sarcastr0]

You'd think that would drive you to favor a mandatory hearing to check if ICE made an error.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're talking "detained", not "deported"; This is like demanding a mandatory hearing before a traffic cop can pull you over.

[minus the clever name]

IF you accept innocent until proven guilty then 'law abiding " makes no sense!!!! Arrest is NOT conviction

[tylertusta]

Can you provide specific examples? I don't like playing guessing games any more than you do.

[LexAquilia]

You're describing a classic two-tiered justice system in practice. Had Sheehan held the approved opinions and beliefs, he never would've faced charges.

[minus the clever name]

Again, stupid. Any discharge of firearms like that would have to be investigated, legit or not. Learn something before mouthing off.
You no more know what he intended or felt or thought than anybody else.

[LexAquilia]

>It was the kind of shot that prosecutors ordinarily consider legitimate. Then the Boston Globe uncovered the officer's social media posts and found him guilty of racism. He was suspended for political incorrectness. Then Suffolk County elected a progressive prosecutor. He was charged with assault for the shooting.

Why are you calling me stupid when you couldn't even be assed to read the context of my statement?

[minus the clever name]

Because you belabor the obvious. And I read your statement, I don't do 'context' 🙂

[LexAquilia]

I accept your apology, and I forgive you for your transgression.

That's what good Christians do. I know some of you embrace the New Testament, I wish the rest of you would. You'd be a better people and not get banned from so many communities.

[John F. Carr]

Sometimes the system does the right thing for the wrong reason.

[LexAquilia]

Do you think that's why the system locks up so many blacks for so long?

[minus the clever name]

You are playing his game. 'Black' is legally defined, has been since Plessy ( who by all accounts was whiter than Princess Di)

[Krayt]

One of the officers was big news in 2018. State police officer Matthew Sheehan shot at a group of ATV riders illegally using a highway, injuring one. It was the kind of shot that prosecutors ordinarily consider legitimate.

Huh?

[Kazinski]

There was a lawsuit filed against the Trump administration in California:

"Trump Immigration Crackdown Sparks Fresh Unlawful Conduct Claims
1 hour ago — The suit claims heavily-armed agents are using “grossly disproportionate” displays of force and warrantless arrests"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-07/trump-immigration-crackdown-sparks-fresh-unlawful-conduct-claims

The lawsuit is of course going nowhere because the record will be replete with testimony about armed mobs attacking ICE officers, which is exactly why disproportionate force is needed to keep officers safe.

Of course a district judge may issue a TRO or preliminary , but it will be quickly appealed and quashed.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course!

[Sarcastr0]

White House says Trump to sign executive order extending deadline; New tariffs rates to go into effect on August 1.

I think TACO is market cope, but good lord.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I thought Tuesdays were for tacos.

[Zarniwoop]

Tuesday is for tacos, but every day is for TACOs.

[hobie]

Why mess with a good scheme? The Trump clan and their inner circle are getting filthy rich trading the swings in ETFs based on daddy's proprietary knowledge and whims. A classic, perpetual pump and dump where you get to use the presidency to manipulate the markets

[minus the clever name]

Hobie the heartless can't see (literally) that this old man with money galore has better things to do than be hated and assassinated. For Hobie, life is something you give the finger to , until you die. Death would liberate poor hater hobie. What a perpetual machine of abusive hate you are. Look at yourself

[hobie]

Newsflash!

The Supreme Court recently announced they would consider a case regarding whether Jews should be allowed to participate in sports. This on top of their previous decision to allow food vendors to deny service to Jews. Justice Harlan Thomas has also asked for a reconsideration of Lawrence v. Texas where Jews were not allowed to have sex with each other. Coupled with state legislatures' bans on Jews using public restrooms and getting to choose their preferred medical procedures.

The ugly spectre of antisemitism is indeed alive and well in this country

[Josh R]

I agree with you most of the time, but analogizing trans women in women's only sports to Jews in sports is embarrassingly flippant.

[hobie]

Hate is hate, Josh. If the closet antisemites want us to end antisemitism, they need to acknowledge their own subjugation of another group of people. Otherwise, their peculiar concern for one fraction of humanity rings very hollow...at least to me it does

[Brett Bellmore]

Rolling eyes is rolling eyes, too. You do understand that the power of analogy is entirely dependent on people thinking things actually ARE analogous, right?

First off, nobody is saying that people who call themselves transgender can't participate in sports. They absolutely can, in the sports for their actual sex. Which is not the sex they claim it to be.

So, if you really wanted to construct a working analogy, you'd have to posit, say, Jewish and Christian sports leagues, and Messianic 'Jews' were insisting on the right to play in Jewish rather than Christian leagues, and the actual Jews weren't going along with the joke.

[hobie]

The sports one is low-hanging fruit, Brett. Care to address the rest? I doubt it because the rest involves humble appraisal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody's being subjugated here. They're just not having their delusions humored.

[Josh R]

Of course there is far-too-ample hate directed towards trans people. But you can oppose categorically including trans women in women's sports without hating trans people (of course, many in this forum do so and do very much hate trans people).

Here is a suggestion: focus on ending discrimination and gaining access to healthcare, and drop the edge issues as being comparable.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problems start when you define "discrimination" as not pretending the 'trans' are actually the sex they claim to be, rather than the sex they really are. And they HAVE access to health care, the problem is that they want highly damaging elective procedures, at BEST cosmetic in nature, and want their insurance to cover them.

My insurance doesn't cover cosmetic surgery. If I suddenly announced that I actually was Burt Reynolds' identical twin, and demanded that my doctor make the outside match the inside, they STILL wouldn't cover cosmetic surgery.

My insurance WILL cover surgery or medication to resolve actual medical issues, and it will do that regardless of whether or not I claim to be Napoleon Bonaparte. No discrimination at all.

[Josh R]

Thinking that gender-affirming care is purely cosmetic is to deny the existence of people who were born in the wrong body, and thus to hate them for who they are.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I deny that there are people who were born in the wrong body. That's not hating them, that's refusing to validate their delusions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"deny the existence of people who were born in the wrong body"

I, too, deny that people who were born in the wrong body exist.

I would also note that by your logic, people who don't believe that Jews are Gods chosen people deny that Jews exist. And hate Jews.

Why do you guys hate Jews?

[Josh R]

Jews exist whether or not they are God's chosen people. If you think Jews aren't God's chosen people, you still accept that Jews exist.

In contrast, people who are born in the wrong body exist if and only if there are people who are born in the wrong body (duh). If you think no one is born in the wrong body, you deny such people exist.

[Brett Bellmore]

12" has, (Unlike Hobie!) constructed a proper analogy.

"People born in the wrong body" = "God's chosen people"
"Trans" = "Jews".

Jews can exist without being God's chosen people, and "trans" can exist without actually being born in the wrong body.

You know, like people with alien limb syndrome exist, without having parasitic growths in need of surgical removal sticking out of their body. Like anorexics exist, without being fat.

[Josh R]

"trans" can exist without actually being born in the wrong body.

Being trans means being born in the wrong body (your use of scare quotes shows you don't think people are trans).

[Brett Bellmore]

No, being 'trans' means claiming to be the opposite sex from your biological reality. Since biological reality is objective fact, not subjective opinion, the claim doesn't alter the reality.

[Josh R]

being 'trans' means claiming to be the opposite sex from your biological reality.

You mean claiming to be born in the wrong body (it's a straw man to say trans people are the opposite sex). If you are wrong and the person is born in the wrong body (i.e., their claim is correct), you are hating them for who they are.

There is no such analogy for Jews. Jewish existence does not depend on the claim about being God's chosen people.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If you are wrong and the person is born in the wrong body (i.e., their claim is correct), you are hating them for who they are."

I'm not hating them to begin with, you're just committed to the silly notion that if I won't humor somebody's delusions, it must be because I hate them. Rather than because I think delusions generally shouldn't be humored, and never at some third party's expense.

I'm not even sure the notion is serious on your part, rather than just a stupid rhetorical tactic.

I can't, frankly, recall the last time I actually hated somebody. Wait, that's a lie, for a while there I actually did seriously hate my ex wife. But I got over it.

What are the 'trans' to me, that I would hate them? Pity, sure, but hate?

[Josh R]

I won't humor somebody's delusions

But if it is not a delusion, then your are hating them for who they are. To be sure, you are motivated by ignorance rather than hate. But, the effect is the same.

[minus the clever name]

Because you are stupid. you say 'hate is hate' with that dumb smug tone of yours but then you immediately go against yourself. If hate is hate then NONE should be countenanced. You are the most hollow jerk on here

[Bwaaah]

In order for an analogy to be useful, its key features have to be analogous to the features of the issue under consideration.

Religious identity is not a useful analog for biological sex, nor for gender identity. Your analogy treats those three classification systems like they're all the same thing. That's a classification error, and it conveniently glosses over, without explanation, the very material differences between those classes.

Regarding the matters of which you speak, you've provided nothing here, Hobie. It's pretty close to a form of masturbation, I think.

[hobie]

I wasn't aware that gender identity is a choice, but religious affiliation isn't. I must then be Episcopalian from cradle to grave whether I want to be or not. It sucks that my religion is immutable.

[Bwaaah]

You skipped over the classification of biological sex, as if you're not implicitly speaking on it while explicitly ignoring it; as if the courts and the states aren't speaking on it in your little diatribe. Explain the issues, Hobie. Don't just ignore them.

[minus the clever name]

Again, so stupidly illogical. Gender identity can only be linked to religious affiliation IF --- going against what you claim -- you believe it is exactly like religious affiliation. how dumb you really are.

[Martinned]

What do you mean religious affiliation isn't a choice? The whole point of US religious competition is that different religions, nationally, and different churches locally compete to get asses in pews by telling people what they want to hear. Free marketplace of ideas, etc. That system presumes that people will switch religious affiliation in response to whether, say, they agree with what the pope says about gay people.

[minus the clever name]

I would bet the farm you aren't Catholic, don't know any Catholics, have no idea what Catholicism is.

How many people I know who knew homosexual behavior is perverted (incl some practicing gays) and THAT is a major reason they became Catholic !!! Same with abortion.

I have noticed over the months that you hate people who don't identify as materialists, determinists, undecideds

[Michael P]

hobie could (as usual) not articulate an actual argument, so he tried to substitute sarcasm for an argument. It didn't land, because his sarcasm was premised on a common leftist myth (that discrimination based on choices is allowed but discrimination based on Internet traits is forbidden), compounded by using the most prominent belief-oriented exception to that heuristic.

[F.D. Wolf]

Obama-appointed District Court Judge Indira Talwani has just blocked provisions in the Big Beautiful Bill that cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Apparently, not only can't the President block funds to left-wing organizations, but Congress can't either. Left-wing organizations have a constitutional right to receive taxpayer dollars in perpetuity.

This decision has a 0% chance of holding up. Once upon a time, judges did not want to be reversed, but today, it is better to be a #Resistance hero, if only for a short while. If the mission of these left-wing hack judges is to destroy the reputation of the judiciary, they are succeeding. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.18.0.pdf

[hobie]

Legislatures cutting off medical care is always good and completely constitutional!

[Brett Bellmore]

Legislatures cutting off subsidies for medical care is often good, and always completely constitutional.

[not guilty]

Not if the cutoff of funding is in fact a prohibited Bill of Attainder, Brett.

[RedheadedPharoh]

If sure is doing a lot or work there, dipshit.

[not guilty]

Have you read the complaint, RedheadedPharoh? Yes or no?

[Brett Bellmore]

A bill of attainder is a law which declares an entity guilty of a crime and imposes the punishment for that crime on them, without a trial.

PP isn't being declared guilty of a crime here, the bill in question doesn't even NAME Planned Parenthood. I'd assume we're talking about "SEC. 71113. FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO PROHIBITED ENTITIES.", as that's the only place in the bill abortion is mentioned.

Now, I'll admit that you could indeed have a bill of attainder without naming the target, so long as it declared guilt and imposed a punishment. But abortion isn't identified as a crime, and refusing to fund somebody isn't a criminal punishment. Rather, it's the default state of mankind!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd add that, in order to plausibly be a bill of attainder, the law would have to declare that Planned Parenthood had done something, not be contingent on Planned Parenthood having done it. The unconstitutionality of bills of attainder revolves around their circumventing the courts' power to determine if somebody is actually guilty of an offense.

Here payments to prohibited entities are forbidden, but the bill does not declare specific entities to be prohibited entities, instead defining what makes one such an entity. So you would need to go through at least some administrative process to be found to be a prohibited entity, and that finding could be challenged in court.

And, of course, the only consequence of being found to be a prohibited entity is not being given money that you never had any actual legal right to in the first place.

Hence, not a bill of attainder.

[not guilty]

"A bill of attainder is a law which declares an entity guilty of a crime and imposes the punishment for that crime on them, without a trial."

Where do you get that definition, Brett? (As I have pointed out to you time and again, Otto Yourazz is not legal authority.)

A bill of attainder is simply a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 323 (1867); Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866). The punishment need not be for criminal conduct, and the possible sanctions imposed thereunder go well beyond those typically associated with the criminal justice system:

"The deprivation of any rights, civil or political, previously enjoyed, may be punishment, the circumstances attending and the causes of the deprivation determining this fact. Disqualification from office may be punishment, as in cases of conviction upon impeachment. Disqualification from the pursuits of a lawful avocation, or from positions of trust, or from the privilege of appearing in the courts, or acting as an executor, administrator, or guardian, may also, and often has been, imposed as punishment."

United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448 (1965), quoting Cummings, 4 Wall. at 71 U.S. 320.

Cummings involved the constitutionality of amendments to the Missouri Constitution of 1865 which provided that no one could engage in a number of specified professions (Cummings was a priest) unless he first swore that he had taken no part in the rebellion against the Union. At issue in Garland was a federal statute which required attorneys to take a similar oath before they could practice in federal courts. The Supreme Court struck down both provisions as bills of attainder on the ground that they were legislative acts inflicting punishment on a specific group: clergymen and lawyers who had taken part in the rebellion and therefore could not truthfully take the oath. Brown, 381 U.S. at 447.

[F.D. Wolf]

Whether it's "good" or not has no bearing on whether it's constitutional. The leftist standard for unconstitutionality seems to be, "I don't like this."

[Krayt]

Power of the purse? What's that?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Legislatures cutting off medical care is always good and completely constitutional!

I recognize the sarcasm though bad as it might be, cutting off medical care or the funding of it is often declared constitutional.

As to reputation, Justice Thomas and other rightwing judges have done yeoman work in harming said reputation.

[Frank Drackman]

Since when is killing unborn humans (is that better than "Babies"??) "Medical Care"??
Now I have to admit, You are a good argument for Abortion, and it has resulted in some 70 million fewer Blacks clogging up the
Express Lanes with too many items,
and before you call me a Race-ist, a Hayseed (can we just get along? you don't call me a Hayseed, I don't talk about how you stole Valor)
YOUR'E (I just used all caps, I hate using all caps) the one who supports terminating Blacks before they have the chance to terminate each other.
I'm the one who's cool with 70 million more of them (many terminating each other)

Frank

[minus the clever name]

Frank, you are losing your point , rapidly.

: “Since the number of current living blacks
(in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents
an enormous loss for, without abortion, America’s black
community would now number 41 million persons. It would
be 35 percent larger than it is currently. Abortion has swept
through the black community cutting down every fourth
member.”

There !!! That's how you respond to abortion supporters who hate Blacks and disguise its effects.

and that is directly from Congressional testimony
https://www.congress.gov/115/meeting/house/106562/witnesses/HHRG-115-JU10-Wstate-ParkerS-20171101-SD001.pdf

[John F. Carr]

That's the first case I posted about below. It took a while to complete my post and when I started this post wasn't here.

[Krayt]

I've complained a lot of Congress threatening to cut Section 230 to coerce social media companies to censor harrassment.

Yet I cannot conceive of a judge observing, accurately, this should be an unconstitutional impulse. Yet it would be repealing a law, not creating a new one.

Repealing a law for an unconstitutional impules is bad, but can a judge assume the power of the legislature and the president in saying, nope, law still active!

I have an even bigger problem with that.

This seems along these lines.

[Bored Lawyer]

As always in any injunction case, first question is: where is the irreparable harm?
I can't see how there could be any in a case where the plaintiff claims it is due money. That is by definition "reparable."

[Armchair]

The TRO is amazing....

Congress has the right to decide where the money it spends goes. That's what this law does. The TRO by a single district court judge is overruling the law passed by Congress which is deciding where its own money is spent...

[not guilty]

The Complaint is here: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/11/57/1157c2e7-7500-4f7a-beb1-d2f16d3760ff/1-complaint_07072025.pdf

The principal claim, among others, is that the cutoff of funding is in fact a prohibited Bill of Attainder.

[Bored Lawyer]

If it's among others, it's not the principal claim.

And Bills of Attainder have to be punishment. It's not this. It's a frivolous position.

[minus the clever name]

Which doesn't stand at all IF the original giving of funding was not legal. OF COURSE

[John F. Carr]

HHS Secretary Kennedy was sued twice today in the District of Massachusetts.

Case 1:25-cv-11913 is brought by Planned Parenthood. It alleges that section 71113 of the Big Beautiful Bill Act, which has the effect of defunding Planned Parenthood, is a bill of attainder, a violation of equal protection, and unconstitutional retaliation. This case looks like a loser. Planned Parenthood's problem is that Republicans don't like abortion. Until 2022 that was a constitutional problem. Now it's a policy disagreement.

Case 1:25-cv-11916 is led by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The complaint is mostly a long press release that should be stricken under Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Essentially the plaintiffs want to enjoin a tweet. The complain mentions a directive that was foreshadowed by the tweet but does not quote it. Plaintiffs are upset that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reduced the number of people for whom a particular vaccine is recommended. If vaccine recommendations followed a formal rulemaking process the plaintiffs would probably win. But the Advisory Committe on Immunization Practices is not so formal. A recent Supreme Court decision allows the Secretary to appoint its members as he wishes. (The Supreme Court thought it was upholding liberal policy choices, but that's not supposed to matter.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Essentially the plaintiffs want to enjoin a tweet. The complain mentions a directive that was foreshadowed by the tweet but does not quote it.

The complaint references: "The final agency action that he announced on X on May 27 is documented in a “Secretarial Directive” that bears the Secretary’s signature and is dated May 19, 2025 (the “Directive”)."

The complaint targets the Directive. "Plaintiffs are entitled to a
declaration that the Directive violates the APA because it is arbitrary and capricious." It does not merely want to enjoin a tweet.

The complaint does quote from the Directive. I don't have an opinion on the strength of the overall claim.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/children-pregnant-women-covid-vaccine-lawsuit.pdf (Case 1:25-cv-11916)

[John F. Carr]

Where is the text of the Directive? I only saw it defined by reference to a tweet.

A typical APA lawsuit targets a notice of rulemaking in the Federal Register that is backed by a clearly defined administrative record. The complaint (I am told by a lawyer who specializes in such things) doesn't need to do more than identify the particular part of a rule that is to be challenged. The rule is in the Federal Register and the administrative record is in a government computer system indexed by a docket number in the Federal Register notice.

Maybe we'll have to wait for John Roberts to make up a rule for this case.

[JohnSmith97]

In what I am sure will be totally shocking to anyone who has paid attention to tax dollars funding PP, Talwani (D-Obama) entered a TRO against the gov't.

I guess there is a right to perpetual tax dollars that PP has that no other group does.

[Frank Drackman]

There's alot of unborn Black (and Brown, not so much the White and Yellow) Babies to be terminated, at least PP doesn't waste their Shekels on Ultrasounds, if a woman knew the living, breathing, pissing organism, siphoning off 1/2 of their caloric intake was a living, breathing, organism siphoning off 1/2 their caloric intake, they'd
Umm, probably be more willing to kill the moocher, bad example.

Frank

[Kazinski]

It won't last long.

If it were an administration directive the injunction would have a chance.

Congress passed a law and the president signed it.

There is no right to funding by the government and the courts have no role in overseeing Congress's funding decisions, especially funding to a private organization.

[minus the clever name]

succinctly stated : you can have no Bill of Attainder where what is removed was not above removal from the get go

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/democrat-lawmaker-play-dirty/2025/07/07/id/1217856/

Armed violence is sure to follow. What does one call that, again?

[Martinned]

We call that "too much time spent watching Newsmaxxx".

[minus the clever name]

There is no 'we' , there's just lonely self-hating you, and you are the only one that says that

[SRG2]

What does one call that, again?/i>

"Fascist poster is hypocrite", seems to fit the bill.

[SRG2]

It seems that calls for violence can be found everywhere - but only some of us think that the people doing so are representative of the entire left or right: https://wibc.com/666011/indy-area-church-calls-for-death-to-lgbtq-community/

This chap is clearly a righr-wing meshuggener but so what

[Commenter_XY]

YTD deportations of criminal illegal aliens (they are all criminals): 200K.

Need another zero on the end to even make a dent in ridding ourselves of these criminal illegal aliens.

Tom Homan talks a good game, but has not delivered...yet.

Hopefully, by EOY, we will see 3MM to 4MM criminal illegal aliens deported from our country; either by CBP-Home, or by ICE. They need to leave.

[Kazinski]

You should count self deportations too, that's also part of Goldman's game.

[tylertusta]

Deportations are limited by bed space and manpower to process them. That's why the spending bill added funds to ICE. It's going to take time to ramp up operations, but there are indications that there's going to be a much larger effort underway.

Also, the compared to the Biden years, the border is now effectively shutdown. Illegals aren't gaining entry at the same rates as they used to. That allows immigration resources to be devoted into the interior instead of the border.

[DeAnnP]

"Also, the compared to the Biden years, the border is now effectively shutdown."

You mean AFTER March 2023? Because it was effectively shut down until then. https://immigrantjustice.org/blog/faq-the-end-of-title-42-expulsions/

[Brett Bellmore]

Southwest Land Border Encounters

So as to avoid seasonal variation, let's look at February of each year.

February '20, Trump's first term: 36,687
February '21, the first full month Biden was in control: 101,099
February '22: 166,010
February '23: 156,630
February '24: 189,913
February '25, the first full month Trump was back in control: 11,710.

THAT is what tylertusta means.

[tylertusta]

Mean encounters between the four Biden February months was 153,413. Feb 2025's numbers constitute a 92% drop from that average, and a 70% drop from Trump's 2020 average, which was also pre-covid.

With numbers that small the government doesn't needing to station a gazillion federal employees on the border because of massive daily numbers.

[David Nieporent]

So what you're saying is that Trump's border patrol did a much much worse job at intercepting immigrants.

[tylertusta]

There is no data to support that. There is plenty of data indicating that encounter rates strongly correlate with got aways:

From 2010 to 2020, when former presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump held office, around 1.4 million gotaways entered the country. But from 2020 to 2023, there have been 1.6 million gotaways. The lowest point for gotaways was fiscal year 2011 at 86,226, and the highest was 2023 at 670,674.

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/05/15/gotaways-biden-administration-data/

I don't think the got away data during Trump's first six months in office is publicly available yet.

[DeAnnP]

My link was actually to refute the "compared to the Biden years, the border is now effectively shut down." It shows Title 42 was in effect until March 2023, which means anyone claiming wide open borders is mistaken.

[tylertusta]

Contrary to the popular belief in left wing circles, Title 42 did not shut down the border under the Biden administration. Yes, some people were expelled under Title 42, but others were admitted- a lot of others. The influx was so bad that between 2021 and 2023 (the years of Title 42 under Biden), immigration court backlog grew by 2 million people.

For example in February of 2023, around 80k 'encounters' were subsequently expelled under Title 42. You'll note that 80k is just over half of the number of encounters in that same month as Brett provided above.

You can check yourself at the Border Patrol website:

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters

[tylertusta]

Multiple arrests after an ambush of ICE corrections officers on July 4th:

State and federal officials announced on Monday that 10 people were arrested for engaging in a "planned ambush" on an ICE detention facility in Texas over the Fourth of July holiday.

The individuals were charged with attempted murder of a federal officer, according to court records.

The incident occurred at the Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas, on Friday, according to Nancy Larson, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas.

At approximately 10:37 p.m., 10 to 12 individuals dressed in black, military-style clothing began shooting fireworks and engaging in acts of vandalism at the facility, Larson said during a press conference.

Two of the attackers shot at police and ICE corrections officers:

When an Alvarado police officer arrived on the scene, one of the individuals shot him in the neck. Another individual shot 20 to 30 rounds at the facility correction officers, according to Larson.

And before our friend Mr. Hobie chimes in about how only the right wields ARs and wears body armor:

Law enforcement found 12 sets of body armor, spray paint, a flag saying "resist fascism, fight oligarchy," flyers saying "fight ice terror with class war free all political prisoners," more fireworks, weapons and cell phones across multiple searches over the weekend.

Edit: Forgot the link to the article:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-arrested-after-ambush-texas-ice-detention-facility/story?id=123555164

[Bwaaah]

Hobie: "It's Texas. There's high-powered weapons and tactical gear involved. Even tyler can put together these pieces and figure out the ideology."

How do you put the pieces together, hobie?

[Bunny495]

Hard to keep up with all the lawsuits filed against Trump/current administration. On the other hand, it is easy to think the number of billable hours has exploded.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, well, well...took long enough.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/08/trump-supreme-court-government-staff-cuts.html