Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 7.9.2025 7:37 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Courts Can Check, and Have Checked, Executives’ Military Judgment
Hide Comments (686)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Trump boasts that billions in tariffs have come into the U.S. from foreign countries. That, of course, is mistaken. The money was already here, in the bank accounts of American companies and individuals who had to pay Trump’s new unilaterally imposed taxes, to import goods from abroad. But I have another question.
Where is that newly-collected tax money deposited now? Has it been deposited in the accounts of the U.S. Treasury, and thus made available for appropriations at the pleasure of Congress? Or has it remained in administrative accounts controlled by the Executive. I have no clue how to find out. Anyone have an answer?
I'm not so sure about that, this article seems to indicate that Canada would help Canadian Aluminum producers pay the US tariffs.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-could-financially-back-aluminum-producers-if-50-us-tariffs-persist-trade-2025-07-05/
I mean it could be they would just subsidize them when the plants shut down, or scale down, but in that case why not just pay the workers? Looks like they will pay them to keep selling and subsidize the tariffs to keep the plants open. Especially since Rio Tinto isn't even a Canadian corporation.
Trump is being smart. Trying to pull the accreditation of Harvard, a treason indoctrination camp.
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5391630-trump-administration-harvard-accreditation-mcmahon/
Next, investigate Harvard for tax fraud. They promised to provide education on the IRS 990. They provided indoctrination. In education, one provides all aspects of a subject. In indoctrination they only allowed the woke. Woke is a masking ideology for Marxism. It serves the interests of the China adversary. No woke in China. This toxic ideology is promoted only in Europe and in the USA. Seize Harvard's assets in civil forfeiture.
All woke is case!
Bonkers Behar.
In all seriousness, think about why so many deeply weird and mentally unwell persons are drawn to MAGA. You don’t have to think of the QAnon Shaman, you can see it here. Behar has a well documented history of weird crazy here. “Frank Drackman” has been caught and admitted he performs a character here. The minus guy is likely bye. Etc.
Check out Black Pill by Elle Reeve for a good analysis on this.
Stale KGB tactic of calling dissenters crazy. I suppose you want me committed, and injected with drugs, as they did. I understand your frustration and triggering. Try to calm down.
Problem. You are committing the Fallacy of Irrelevance.
Reeve is a CNN reporter. Dismissed. She commits the Exception Fallacy, nitpicking 1% of the group of MAGA supporters. David Duke is the head of the KKK. He hates Jews and blacks. If you go to his website, you will see only negative reporting about those two groups. The website is dismissed as hate speech, just an expression of feelings of hate. The same is true of CNN and 90% of the mainstream media. They are owned by the coastal tech and fin bros. These also own the Dem Party. Under the Dem gov, their assets have gone from $2.5 trillion in 2020 to $5.5 trillion in 2024, thanks to government policies.
She omits the real impetus for MAGA. 50 years of stagnating wages.
I suggest that you open a bulletin from your local night high school. Attend a course on critical thinking, please. Focus on the lessons in Cognitive Fallacies.
My comments are addressed to the lawyers. Stop reading them.
OK, but this is a highly special case and Canada is not paying the tariffs.
The government is subsidizing the companies, not the tariffs. They couldn't, because, again, Canadian aluminum producers do not pay the tariffs, US importers pay them. If the Canadian government is helping the producers it is almost certainly simply helping them bear losses associated with reduced revenue due to the US tariffs.
So no, Canada is not paying the tariffs.
Keeping the math simple, lets say aluminum is FOB $1/lb at Houlton, Maine (where I-95 crosses the border). This includes not only the price of it, but the cost of getting it to Houlton, and any taxes or US import duties due -- it is "Free On Board" to that point, with the purchaser then having to pay for a truck to ship it to New Jersey himself.
Now the Evil Orange Man imposes a 25% tariff. To be FOB Houlton, that pound of aluminum now costs $1.25 ($1.00 + $0.25). BUT if the $1.00 is reduced to $0.75, the total remains at $1.00
Now why would a company that had been selling it for $1.00 now be willing to sell it for $0.75?
Keeping market share is one reason, but a Canadian Government subsidy may be another. Canada is more socialist than the US and routinely subsides companies to maintain jobs. And it well may be part of both, companies are eating a lot of Trump's tariffs so as to maintain market share.
The government is subsidizing the companies, not the tariffs.
Except that they aren't even doing that. The article says that aluminum producers are in discussions with the government about subsidies, not that they are currently receiving any.
" The money was already here, in the bank accounts of American companies and individuals"
That of course is misleading. Importers, whether they are foreign companies or domestic companies pay tariffs.
That, of course, is also misleading. Importers pass tariffs and other taxes along to wholesalers, retailers, and the consumer. Maybe not all of the amount, but most.
"importers pass tariffs and other taxes along to wholesalers, retailers, and the consumer"
If they can. If doing so makes the product cost too much relative to domestic options, well.... Then they don't pass them along.
Tariffs are just another tax form. You'd probably throw a party importing VAT tax from Canada and Europe. What do you care?
It all comes out of the pockets of Americans one way or the other. It's all an accounting gimmick.
It's a tax increase. Remember my prediction: if there's a windfall that balances the budget (unlikely) our politicians will quickly ramp up spending to get us back in the red.
Well, of course. Voters (especially Republican voters) consistently reward that behavior.
In this case, it doesn't come out of the pocket of American consumers. It comes out of the pockets of the capital class.
As a pretty good rule, new taxes on firms either increase prices paid by the firm's consumers or reduce wages paid to the firm's employees. If you want to increase taxes on "the capital class" then increase capital gains taxes, but expect dynamic responses in the form of tax avoidance that reduces investment and productivity.
No, MIchael, that rarely happens and France proves it
" in neighboring France 42,000 millionaires fled the country between 2000 and 2012 to avoid its solidarity wealth tax (ISF)."
Um, that's literally what he said. "Dynamic responses in the form of tax avoidance."
You aren't paying attention....THEY FLED THE COUNTRY
Yes. That's pretty damn dynamic.
I too thought it quite dynamic. Still don't know how Munus disagrees with Michael P.
Eh. Firms aren't guaranteed some arbitrary level of profit. They'll raise prices if they can, and an increase in costs will mean that the incentive to do so is stronger. But they can't price things arbitrarily high or people won't buy them (seems pretty obvious that if you expect dynamic responses to taxes that's also going to apply to prices).
Similarly, the labor market is a market. Companies generally pay the wages they need to in order to get the labor they need, not because they have a certain amount of discretionary dollars hanging around for humans.
Normally, if tariffs increased you'd expect some amount of increased prices, some amount of decreased sales as a result, and some amount of decreased profit as a result of more margin pressure as well as declining sales. The exact amount of each will depend on specific market conditions, but it's very rarely the case that it will come all from consumers, all from labor or all from profits.
Random tariffs are a pretty shitty form of taxes, though. You could imagine a strategic tariff policy that might encourage more trade with allies and less with enemies, or focusing in areas where we want to make sure we have domestic production capacity. But Trump fundamentally doesn't understand how trade works or notions like comparative advantage so instead we just get random tariff of the week with no obvious objective other than maximizing the chaos in the system.
I agree with all of this. Trump did not roll out the tariffs well. I'm just pointing out the lie spread by the Wall Street owned media, that tariffs are 100% a tax on consumers, in order to drum up public opinion against them, when the real goal is to maintain the stock bubble.
Trump boasts that billions in tariffs have come into the U.S. from foreign countries.
Trump is either lying or he's uncommonly ignorant (por que no los dos?), but a lot of fools believe him. And a lot of toadies pretend to.
This is bernard, who knows he can't write and is not a thinker of any high caliber, trying to elevate himself by insulting the 80 Million who don't agree with him. I am not a Trumper but I am an anti-bernard-er. The Bernards of the world gave us Kamala, who really did milk people of their money and give it to millionaires.
We'll put you down on the "fool" side of the ledger.
Readers, notice the reflexive use of 'we ' when he is caught out. Kinda funny.
But Bernard, I did link an article above showing that the Canadian Government is considering subsidizing US tariffs on Canadian Aluminum and Steel manufacturers.
That's not billions, and its not in place yet, but do you think its unique in the history of the world?
Truth is that a lot of companies will pull out the old slide rule and try to figure out if they can still undercut domestic suppliers with the current tariffs, and if they can't whether its feasible to take a lower profit margin to remain competitive.
Or in the case of some domestic corporations that import their products made overseas, whether or not they will maximize their profits from reducing their margins or keeping their margins high and sacrificing some sales.
An extreme example is Apple's gross margin is on an Iphone 15, according to reports, is about 50%, and net margin 30-40%.
Kazinski, read your own link. It says nothing about paying the tariff.
It's about providing financial support to the companies. Now, some of that may affect the incidence of the tariff. To the extent the aluminum companies cut prices they effectively pay part of the tariff, but that hasn't happened yet, and might not. The companies may well keep prices where they are and bear the loss of sales, relying on the subsidy to stay alive.
Canada has discussed offering financial support to large aluminum producers like Rio Tinto (RIO.L), impacted by a U.S.-led trade war, in the event that Washington's 50% tariff on imports of the metal persist in the medium term, the CEO of a key industry trade group said on Saturday. .... While the major aluminum producers operating in Canada do not have liquidity problems, Simard said, a 50% U.S. tariff on aluminum imports would inevitably have an impact on finances if it continues longer term.
A possible scenario, but unlikely.
Bernard you are economically literate enough to realize the motivation here is to preserve canadian workers jobs, and the long term health of Canadian Aluminum industry. So their interest is keeping the plants operating, maintain market share, and most importantly keeping the workers working, not shoring up a foreign corporation's bottom line, while they are furloughing workers.
"accounts of the U.S. Treasury, and thus made available for appropriations at the pleasure of Congress? Or has it remained in administrative accounts controlled by the Executive."
Bad news, U.S. Treasury accounts are controlled by the Executive.
If Lathrop had a clue he could find out easily, Treasury puts out reams of public reports, like the Daily Treasury Statement which has "Record Date Type of Account Opening Balance Today Opening Balance This Month Opening Balance This Fiscal Year" etc.
for the different accounts updated daily M-F, or the Monthly Treasury Statement, which I analyzed in Monday's thread. Or dozens of other revenue or expenditure reports from daily to annual.
If I didn't know Lathrop better, I'd think he was making veiled accusation that Trump was skimming tariff money into an off the books slush fund. Thank God we can rule that out.
He's really just too dumb to have clear thoughts on anything
I was just making fun of his idea that there are magical Treasury [an executive dept.] accounts not under the control of the executive.
Just what is amusing about a former newspaper man having no idea that Treasury publishes dozens of public reports, and "no clue how to find out"?
Well I guess it is a little amusing when I think about it.
Kazinski — Consider the possibility that like most folks, I don't have expertise to reach conclusions I would trust, where "dozens of public reports," need consideration together. As a newspaper person, my usual take on a challenge like that would be to find a few experts to interview.
So how would you manage a fact check on the experts then, if you had no idea how to find or read the published reports to at least do a sanity check on their conclusions?
Same with a local publicly traded corporation, do you just do an interview with the CEO, and not check their last quarterly report and just do a puff piece on what the CEO told you?
Or same with the mayor of the local municipality.
All these are published publicly for a reason so even the laziest private citizen can find the information with a minimum of clicks, let alone legwork, or a trip to the library.
Of course this: "Consider the possibility that like most folks, I don't have expertise to reach conclusions I would trust"
Does explain Sarcastro's mystified reaction when I compared one months treasury data to the same month in the previous fiscal year, must seem like alchemy to the uninitiated when they see such exotic slight of hand with numbers.
Unhesitating confidence of that sort is a field mark of an autodidact about to blunder.
As for your cynicism about the press, you would be amazed to discover what an experienced interviewer, skilled at deploying open-ended questions, and backed by an institutional press, can do to encourage experts to critique each other until the truth precipitates, as if from chemical solution.
The part you know the least about, is the part about institutional press backing. Leave all the other predicates in place—the experienced interviewer, the open-ended questions, the array of experts—but subtract the institutional press, and the alchemy ceases to function.
The Supreme Court issued a stay in Trump v American Federation of Government Employees, allowing Trump to continue with the layoffs and reorganization while their appeal is pending.
How many employees?
Hard to say but its "massive".
Jackson has an informative footnote in her (solo)dissent: "18a. Moreover, the extensive (and unrebutted) record demonstrates that those planned personnel changes are massive. The District Court cited multiple examples to illustrate this point, including proposed reductions in force of approximately 93 percent of employees at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, nearly half the workforce at the Department of Energy, and more than half the workforce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Id., at 18a, 50a. Also in evidencewere proposed cuts of 70 percent of the staff at the Department of Labor’s headquarters and 83,000 workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, just to name a few. Id., at 18a; see also id., at 82a (Ninth Circuit recitation of agencies proposing to eliminate more than 85 percent of their workforces)."
Sotomayor had a very interesting comments to Jackson in her concurrence, with advice to focus on the current task and not get ahead of herself: "I agree with JUSTICE JACKSON that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates. See post, at 13. Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force “consistent with applicable law,” App. to Application for Stay 2a, and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much. The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance."
Last week Sarcastro rightly chastised me for unsupported speculation about Jackson not getting any joins to her dissent in CASA: Kazinski 1 week ago I think Kagan and Sotomayor not joining her opinion was their own message to Jackson to tone it down.
Sarcastr0 1 week ago
Sure, man.
Keep speculating to align with what you want to be true. You'll be Blackman's mini-mi before you know it!
Maybe I was just a week early?
No, the 'vibe meter' needs calibration.
As for the decision itself, the RIFs begin imminently.
Exactly! Purge the competent! Bring in the hacks! Who needs a competent civil service anyway? All that matters is loyalty to the Great Leader!
Here's a catchy line he can use in the RIF memo:
"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... In the name of God, go!"
True! Actual knowledge and experience are unnecessary too! Why not put a 22-year old in charge of anti-terrorism? https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-dhs-thomas-fugate-cp3-terrorism-prevention
Good thing Big Balls is gone now. He was starting to get pretty long in the tooth.
"22-year old in charge of anti-terrorism"
He's not "in charge of anti-terrorism", its a section that gives out grants. Its not an intelligence or law enforcement position.
"Who needs a competent civil service anyway?"
Not the USA. We've never had one!
Every time you breath clean air or drink clean water or drive on the interstate you’re doing so because of a competent civil service.
Keep thinking that.
I will keep thinking that civil servants are an important part of maintaining public infrastructure and goods, yes. How do you think those things are accomplished Bob? Magic?
If they get credit for these good things, are they also culpable for any bad things?
Like chronic health crises, mental health crises, family disintegration, obesity epidemic, wealth inequality, and income stagnation?
Sure. But it also depends on the policies that elected leaders select and what they have tasked the civil service with implementing. Many of your examples are about the consequences of policy choices by elected, not the day-to-day work in implementing policy, which is what the civil service does.
So for example, a civil servant would determine based on science and a complex series of regulations whether a particular water treatment facility is doing its job and hence whether Bob has clean water to drink. What examples are you thinking of with regard to the obesity epidemic that a competent civil servant would be able to fix given the current state of law and policy?
We actually have a test case about this.
In the US federal and other government employment used to be based on patronage (political loyalty). The corruption and incompetence was so great both parties turned to civil service reforms.
People like Bob are, understandably, upset by this because they define themselves by partisanship. Cynically, they think, like themselves, there’s nothing that can exist differently than that.
Being a partisan hack, and to such a degree to be unable to imagine any scenario where others are not, his only interest is in having the hacks he wants in charge.
Ah, as usual white supremacist gots nothing.
I think a lot of it is ignorance combined with stubbornness. They don't know how anything actually works and speak in absolutes about the people making things work. Then when they are confronted with the relationship between their day-to-day lived experience and the institutions that support it they don't want to admit they were wrong about anything and just pretend they were right all along. But they obviously can't offer another explanation for how things work in practice. He actually can't explain why he is able to drink clean water without admitting that civil servants are competent.
"both parties turned to civil service reforms"
True, but reforms fail all the time. The current civil service is corrupt in a different way and still incompetent.
"The current civil service is corrupt in a different way and still incompetent."
Notably you just say these things and don't give actual concrete examples. Nor could you explain how you would do a better job at the things they do. I mean if they're corrupt and incompetent surely you would be more capable, right? Which means you could conduct air traffic control operations right now?
The patronage system worked quite a while until it got out of hand.
The current system worked quite a while too, but its not working anymore.
Maybe this new system of firing half the civil service every time they piss people off enough will work.
I am certainly ready to try.
Or...not joining a dissent does not provide any factual support for anyone sub rosa telling their colleague to tone it down?
Blackman-level Court soap opera speculation remains exactly that.
Or, and this is better aligned with reality than your hallucination, the actual text from the opinion that explicitly tells their rogue activist colleague to tone down DOES, indeed, provide factual support for the claim.
It was 8-1 and Sotomayer explicitly dunked on KJB. That comes right on the heels of Kagan smacking KJB down, in writing, explicitly.
How many times were there 8-1 decisions with Thomas as the lone dissenter? And often a fellow conservative would address Thomas in the majority or a concurrence.
Sure, they'd disagree with him, but I don't recall them having to point out to him that the case didn't have anything to do with what he was dissenting about.
The tone was very different, and for good reason.
In all those cases?
He's not your personal research assistant. If you suspect a drubbing similar to what Kenjati BoneCaller has been getting, the onus is on you to produce them.
Not speculate, handwave, then hope someone does your work for you.
Earn your 2 Remnabi.
I was going to ask you for a cite Malika, aren't you the one making the assertion?
"Kenjati BoneCaller"??
Really?
Not mine. And I certainly don't approve of such bizarre nicknames, whatever they mean. She's a supreme court justice, and while I might criticize her I am not going to disrespect her personally, her opinions maybe, but not her as a woman, whatever that may mean.
But is the man who has a breast fetish obsession with Ashleigh Merchant be the one who calls him out?
ng, I remind you of your usual "Pam Bottle Blondie." Same sin, not better, not worse.
It's not the refusal to join a dissent it's writing a concurrence saying:
"I agree with you on the issue, but are you even talking about the same case as the rest of us?"
or as the concurrence put it:
"I agree with JUSTICE JACKSON that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force “consistent with applicable law,”
"The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law."
That from Sotomayor.
Again, that is not a sub rosa message to tone it down.
It is as it reads - disagreement on the law.
No, there was no disagreement with the law, the disagreement is what the controversy before the court was.
The court said an executive order directing reductions "consistent with applicable law" could not be enjoined.
Jackson was saying, 'yeah but I don't trust the administration to do that, we can't let them even start, we can let the district court judge guess what they are going to do before they even publish a plan to do it.'
Ya but wasn't this a preliminary injunction and part of the question is whether or not to maintain the status quo until the legal question is resolved? I think KBJ's broad point was letting the executive cut the way they plan on cutting would blow up the status quo and if the legal question is resolved against the executive (2 or 3yrs from now)... it would be impossible to fix. I.e, irreparable harm would result by letting the plans get implemented.
She used concrete examples to show why the district ct thought the balance of equities worked against the govt in this case.
Yeah. You're making drama out of nothing. Remember when Thomas concurred in California v. Texas? Because the Alito/Gorsuch dissent sucked so bad? Do you remember anyone saying that Thomas has finally had enough of his dumb colleagues? Or that Alito and Gorsuch must be the dumbest people ever appointed because of that dissent? No. This stuff only gets said about Justice Jackson or Sotomayor because, well, I'll let you figure that one out.
KJB has clearly signaled she is an activist and not a jurist. This is the second time a Liberal justice dunked on her for being a hack.
She has clearly signaled that she is incompetent and not fit to serve as a S.Ct. Justice. Even Sotomayor, not the sharpest tool in the shed (or any shed for that matter) tried to correct the dimwitted DEI appointment. As noted by Prof. Jacobson:
As the self-described ‘Wise Latina’ pointed out, all the court allowed the administration to do was develop plans. The district court prevented even planning, and ruled that the as-yet non-existent plans needed an emergency injunction.
Jackson simply could not understand the issue.
concur on KBJ - read her moore concurrance. She grossly distorted the holdings in the cases she cited. You wont find a cpa or tax attorney that would agree with anything she wrote in her concurrance. Granted Kavanaugh mischaracterized the history of pass through entities in the opinion.
What a dumb concurrance!
address the merits - oops never mind its beyond your comprehension
If you’re going to insult someone’s intelligence you might want to spell the words in your insult correctly.
concur on KBJ - read her moore concurrance. She grossly distorted the holdings in the cases she cited.
bookkeeper_joe did it again! He doesn't know what cases she cited, doesn't know what she said about them, and doesn’t know what they held. He tries feebly to disguise that by not actually saying anything of substance at all.
bot DN - programmed to repeat his lies
Read the f--- cases she cites before commenting further.
Here's Bill Shipley's observation on KBJ:
I have heard that Justice Jackson's performance on the Supreme Court reflects in many ways her performance as a District Judge on the D.C. District Court, where she served for 8 years. She served only 1 year on the D.C. Court of Appeals before Joe Biden nominated her to the Supreme Court. So, what we have with Justice Jackson is a Justice who acts and thinks very much like a district judge. The positions are very different. District judges spend a lot of time in court, and make many snap decisions without a lot of time to do lengthy legal research and analysis. They get stuff wrong as a result, but the trials they preside over are not intended or expected to be "error free." They are supposed to be "fair" when considered against the backdrop that they will not be perfect. Being a Supreme Court Justice requires entirely different skills and a more contemplative demeanor. Her "trial judge" tendencies are exposed to the public by the way she questions the attorneys during oral arguments. She is not tugging at the threads of the legal reasoning, searching for boundaries or inconsistencies, she is interrogating counsel in ways that are quite well understood by trial attorneys. The Supreme Court is more of an intellectual legal exercise. The arguments aren't about "right" or "wrong" in the case before the court in the same way a trial judge deals with "right" and "wrong" with regard to the parties before him/her. She might grow into it and improve at the things she does not do well. But at this point she is still a trial judge sitting on the Supreme Court.
I have heard that Justice Jackson's performance on the Supreme Court reflects in many ways her performance as a District Judge on the D.C. District Court, where she served for 8 years.
She served only 1 year on the D.C. Court of Appeals before Joe Biden nominated her to the Supreme Court.
So, what we have with Justice Jackson is a Justice who acts and thinks very much like a district judge.
The positions are very different. District judges spend a lot of time in court, and make many snap decisions without a lot of time to do lengthy legal research and analysis. They get stuff wrong as a result, but the trials they preside over are not intended or expected to be "error free." They are supposed to be "fair" when considered against the backdrop that they will not be perfect.
Being a Supreme Court Justice requires entirely different skills and a more contemplative demeanor. Her "trial judge" tendencies are exposed to the public by the way she questions the attorneys during oral arguments. She is not tugging at the threads of the legal reasoning, searching for boundaries or inconsistencies, she is interrogating counsel in ways that are quite well understood by trial attorneys.
The Supreme Court is more of an intellectual legal exercise. The arguments aren't about "right" or "wrong" in the case before the court in the same way a trial judge deals with "right" and "wrong" with regard to the parties before him/her.
She might grow into it and improve at the things she does not do well. But at this point she is still a trial judge sitting on the Supreme Court.
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1938675186204844452
Bill shipley's observation may be valid - I just note that her concurrence in Moore was horrifically bad with the gross distortions of the prior cases she cited demonstrating complete misunderstanding of tax law. One of the most astonishing items in the case was that the US / India tax treaty prohibited the taxing of India's corporations income in the US. Granted, the treaty was not an issue before the court, therefore it wasnt addressed.
Maybe it was him (Shipley), but probably somewhere on the Twitter if not, I saw it observed this can be a indicator of lower quality law clerks being hired. Obviously a SCOTUS clerkship is max prestige, but you have to wonder whether KBJ applicant pool really reflects the best and brightest. Is working for a dullard a poisoned chalice? You clerked at the Supreme Court...excellent! It was for Justice Jackson...meh, never mind.
On these outlier specialty cases (tax, patent) justices themselves are probably not experts or experienced. That's where smart clerks can become especially important, to dig deep into the issue and coach up the justice.
Maddog Your observation on the clerks is likely valid, though that is should be a reflection on her competency. How is it possible that she so badly misinterpreted macomber. Had she or any of her clerks never heard of stock splits and the tax treatment of stock splits.
she cited obear - nester glass which dealt with punitive damages which the opinion cited macomber - but she distorted what the court opinion said about macomber. She then cites us v james to back up what she misrepresented of macomber, yet the US v james case was not even a tax case.
correction - I pulled the wrong james case
DEI law clerks is my guess, if that theory is correct. Which fits with a DEI Justice.
when you say "DEI" are you actually claiming they were hired by affirmative action? or are you using "DEI" to mean brown/black? or do you think any non-white hire must be DEI to have gotten the job?
Is working for a dullard a poisoned chalice? You clerked at the Supreme Court...excellent! It was for Justice Jackson...meh, never mind.
No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions. Setting aside that KBJ graduated from Harvard and Harvard Law School, and I'm betting that none of her critics did either of those things.
If you did your homework instead of repeating your bot comments - you would know how badly she fubar'd her concurrence.
If the standard for a justice being an irredeemable idiot that no one would want to clerk for or hire clerks from is one or two stupid concurrences or dissents that would mean every justice is an irredeemable idiot.* Alito's dissents in California v. Texas and the CFPB case were incredibly dumb. I don't see you calling them dullards.
*I am open to the possibility all judges are irredeemable idiots.
The discussion dealt with kbj - I am quite familiar with cases kbj cited. As stated, she grossly distorted and misrepresented the cases she cited. There is not a single competent tax attorney or CPA that would agree with her concurrence. It was that pathetically bad.
Clarence Thomas once wrote a pathetically bad concurrence where he argued that Gideon v. Wainwright was wrongly decided. No competent criminal attorney (prosecutor or defense) agrees with that. Does that make him an irredeemable idiot under your standard?
I am quite familiar with cases kbj cited.
No, you're not. You've never read them and wouldn't understand them if you ever did.
As stated, she grossly distorted and misrepresented the cases she cited.
And yet you couldn't cite even one single misstatement she made. Not one.
she is not smart and can't talk, that suffices (though Biden is sub-smart and can't talk so there is a counter-example--- but he called her one of the great minds of her generation ...THERE WE GO !!!!
A quarter-ass that looks up to a half-ass.
Can she properly use parentheses?
There's a poppy seed or something stuck between your front teeth. (Just trying to help you out.
Can you properly use a Condom? too bad your old man couldn't
I don’t need to know, your mom always puts it on for me.
A grammar correction and a “yo mamma” joke; what a bright mind you are.
As your dad often said watching me and your mom from the crack in the nearly closed closet door, I am a man of many and varied talents.
You aren't even a man. You are a crude child who never grew up
Uh, yeah, the guy who thinks being gay is "perversion" doesn't really have a leg to stand on in talking about being a crude child.
Alito is just as ridiculous as any of the liberal justices, but interestingly you don't see him getting called out by his colleagues for being a hack.
Then --- LOGIC --- maybe he isn't called out BECAUSE he is not just as ridiculous ELSE you are claiming that you are smarter than Alito AND the others. A patent falsehood, just judging by how you yourself write
Alternative hypothesis: the conservative Justices aren't as willing to self-police and call out their colleagues when they are being partisan shills.
LOGIC can’t consider that possibility!
But I must ask why you hypothesize, it can only be that you have to call it into question on no basis. That is, they don' because there is nothing there to call out.
Everyone loves a good Cat Fight
"The Supreme Court issued a stay in Trump v American Federation of Government Employees, allowing Trump to continue with the layoffs and reorganization while their appeal is pending."
This looks like exactly the error on Jackson's part that Sotomayor rightly criticized her for.
What the Supreme court allowed to continue was the planning of the layoffs and reorganization. Not the actual layoffs and reorganization, which are only in the planning stages.
RIFs can be executed (heh) quite quickly.
Sure, they can be, but it remains a fact that the Court merely allowed the administration to continue planning them. Essentially taking the position that, since the EO had directed that they plan to do them in compliance with the law, you could not assume up front that the plans would, in fact, violate the law.
You'd have to wait until there were plans to look at.
TROs, obviously, can issue quickly, too.
Fox News is apparently reporting that the FBI has reportedly opened criminal investigations into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-reportedly-launches-criminal-investigations-into-james-comey-and-john-brennan/ar-AA1IdYtI?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=1af3af9d75a44c9e977fbad6f8381145&ei=14
MSN attributes the following to Fox News:
Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump–Russia probe, including allegedly making false statements to Congress, Justice Department sources told Fox News Digital. CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred evidence of wrongdoing by Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital. The sources said that the referral was received and told Fox News Digital that a criminal investigation into Brennan was opened and is underway. DOJ sources declined to provide further details. It is unclear, at this point, if the investigation spans beyond his alleged false statements to Congress. As for Comey, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital that an investigation into the former director is underway, but could not share details of what specifically is being probed.
Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump–Russia probe, including allegedly making false statements to Congress, Justice Department sources told Fox News Digital.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred evidence of wrongdoing by Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital.
The sources said that the referral was received and told Fox News Digital that a criminal investigation into Brennan was opened and is underway. DOJ sources declined to provide further details. It is unclear, at this point, if the investigation spans beyond his alleged false statements to Congress.
As for Comey, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital that an investigation into the former director is underway, but could not share details of what specifically is being probed.
This puzzles me. How is prosecution of anything that DOJ is looking into not barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a):
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.
I would not be too surprised to see the DOJ clowns intentionally bring a time barred indictment for the sake of vomiting out their vitriol onto the public record, knowing full well that a motion to dismiss would be granted forthwith.
Because the testimony to congress was in the last 5 years?
When did James Comey testify before Congress regarding Donald Trump and Russia? He did so in June of 2017. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295 It looks like he testified again on September 30, 2020, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-former-fbi-director-comey-testifies-over-role-in-russia-investigation , which would leave about 12 weeks to pursue an indictment.
When did John Brennan testify before Congress regarding Donald Trump and Russia? He did so on May 23, 2017. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/23/brennan-coats-trump-russia-intelligence-238739 Has he done so more recently?
I am no fan of James Comey -- his October 2016 shenanigans regarding Anthony Weiner's laptop computer may have propelled Donald Trump into office. But I would be quite surprised if he willfully gave testimony which he did not believe to be true about any material matter.
"But I would be quite surprised if he willfully gave testimony which he did not believe to be true about any material matter."
I'm not sure why you'd find that surprising. Surely not on account of thinking him particularly honest. Maybe thinking him too careful to do that?
Apparently the specific perjury in question was that he testified under oath of the Steele dossier, “It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done.”
But recently uncovered records revealed that, in fact, not only was it used, it was at Brennan's own insistence.
You gotta realize Brett,
NG's entire bit here was that the indictments were limited by the statue of limitations. In light of 2020 and 2023 testimony by Comey and Brennan, that's been blow out of the water.
So now all he's playing is the "Comey's a good guy, he wouldn't do that" card. Which...since NG doesn't actually personally know Comey...has the same strength of argument as "He's a good white boy, he wouldn't do that to those girls".
Our mutual friend Mr. Guilty's legal analysis and positions are often aspirational.
Brennan also testified in 2023.
Did you read the testimony? I posted a link to it in the Monday thread. There's nothing at all anywhere that indicates a single word of it is false.
"Did you read the testimony?"
Yes, Brennan talks extensively about the Steele Dossier in it. His attorney warns him several times he doesn't need to respond to those questions. Yet Brennan does...
" There's nothing at all anywhere that indicates a single word of it is false."
This is like when you blithely asserted that the GOP's share of the two party vote hadn't gone up in RI over the last 20 years. Then when challenged with the truth, you ran away. You've got no idea, you haven't actually read the entire testimony, let alone deeply compared it to the other facts.
You're just spouting off lies and BS, and hoping no one calls you on it. Just like with the RI case.
Of course, you made up the "share of the two party vote" thing, and what you actually did was just cherrypick years to show that Harris and Clinton were less popular than Obama which — well duh.
You're just embarrassing yourself now. You can throw Biden in there in 2020 too.
Also, he does not talk "extensively" about the dossier. He just says, repeatedly, that although he had heard some talk about it, he never saw it until the assessment. And that it was the FBI's responsibility. There's nothing in there that could be remotely criminal.
Clearly you didn't actually read the dossier. Brennan spends several pages worth of testimony talking about the dossier. It's not just one line.
You keep going "it can't be criminal"...but you don't compare it to anything. No comparisons to the truth. You're just spouting nonsense and lies because...you don't actually know.
I did read the dossier, although I assume that what you meant to type was "the transcript," which I also read. (I also linked to it so others could read it.) He says nothing of substance about the dossier, which was not the topic of his testimony;¹ all he does is say, repeatedly, that he had heard about it but hadn't seen it before. There were not "several pages worth of testimony" on it, unless you're talking about the aggregate of a bunch of one or two sentence answers. I keep saying it can't be criminal because (to reiterate what I just said) there's nothing of substance about the dossier in his testimony. ¹We are talking about his 2023 testimony, not his 2017 testimony, right?
Comey also testified in September 2020
In your initial comment, you complained of a time barred indictment. Even if we assume the September 20,2020 date controls, an indictment within 3 months is what we call timely, not time barred. Rendering your initial rant horse pucky.
As an aside, i point out you reveled in the prosecutorial abuses of power systematically directed against President Trump. Almost makes one believe your opinions here are based on politics, not the law.
Comey and Brennan are fortunately off the hook for their actions thanks to the statute of limitations. Perpetuating the russian hoax when it was known the steele dossier was produced through the HRC campaign (granted it was through several layers to hide the hrc sourcing).
There was, of course, a lot more to the Russian interference allegations than the Steele Dossier.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
Someone didn't get the Brennan memo.
All of a sudden ng thinks the DOJ is filled with hacks. The DOJ he spent years sucking off as they went after Trump.
Yes, and then the Trump administration purged all the ethical lawyers from (the top ranks of) the department, and replaced them with pliant hacks.
Actually, Redhead, I was quite critical of Merrick Garland's foot dragging as to investigating Donald Trump prior to the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel. Smith did an admirable job in the time he had available to him, but if Garland had acted sooner, the outcome could have been very different.
It would appear that Comey and Brennan will begin to be held to account via a lengthy and expensive judicial process.
It would not.
Right, you were critical of Garland not being enough of a hack.
And we can't forget his shield for Smith's aggressiveness and stretching of the law was his "indica of integrity" or some other gay phrase supposedly buttressed by ethics in the legal profession.
Which of course somehow doesn't also apply to the current set of DOJ prosecutors.
Lex has his mind on gay buttresses.
I would not be too surprised to see the DOJ clowns intentionally bring a time barred indictment
I would. Like the whole Epstein thing, this is just political theater to (to steal from the late unlamented Arthur Kirkland) lather the rubes. Contrary to what MAGA pretended with respect to Russiagate, no law in any way restricts the FBI from merely opening an investigation of anyone for any, or no, reason. (Of course, how they can conduct such an investigation is limited by several entries in the Bill of Rights.) "Opening an investigation" is nothing more than bureaucratese. So, sure, they can pretend they're actually considering an arrest and prosecution, but they're not going to follow through.
Such an indictment would not surprise me because it would serve as a screed for Trump's minions to allege all kinds of splenetic, Trumpian bullshit about the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, secure in the knowledge that they would never have to actually offer evidence of a word of it -- and secure in the knowledge that no consequence would follow from their perfidy.
Trump's narrative would go on the public record uncontested.
Since someone mentioned Bill Shipley above, he linked to this tweet:
May I piss all over your parade for a moment? Real investigations are not announced. They are executed. No hashtags. No podiums. No breathless cable segments. If you’re hearing about one, it is either over or it was never real in the first place. I have led federal investigations that went all the way to convictions without a single leak. You know why? Because we were professionals. Because when you are hunting predators, you do not bang pots and pans to announce your presence. You track them. You trap them. Then you end them. The moment an investigation becomes a media campaign, it is dead. It is lawfare. It is psychological ops. It is public masturbation by cowards pretending to seek justice while actually chasing headlines, vendettas, or election boosts. I’ve been there; seen it. In fact, I have seen cases burned to the ground by people who could not keep their mouths shut. Usually from inside the DOJ, the FBI, or some self-important clown in Congress desperate to be in the know. They do not want justice. They want airtime. I had a boss, once, who tried to get me to jump into the muddy puddle. It never happened, because it must never happen!! Let me say it plainly. Indictments are announced. Investigations are secret. What you are watching is a circus.
May I piss all over your parade for a moment?
Real investigations are not announced. They are executed. No hashtags. No podiums. No breathless cable segments. If you’re hearing about one, it is either over or it was never real in the first place.
I have led federal investigations that went all the way to convictions without a single leak. You know why? Because we were professionals. Because when you are hunting predators, you do not bang pots and pans to announce your presence. You track them. You trap them. Then you end them.
The moment an investigation becomes a media campaign, it is dead. It is lawfare. It is psychological ops. It is public masturbation by cowards pretending to seek justice while actually chasing headlines, vendettas, or election boosts. I’ve been there; seen it.
In fact, I have seen cases burned to the ground by people who could not keep their mouths shut. Usually from inside the DOJ, the FBI, or some self-important clown in Congress desperate to be in the know. They do not want justice. They want airtime.
I had a boss, once, who tried to get me to jump into the muddy puddle. It never happened, because it must never happen!!
Let me say it plainly.
Indictments are announced.
Investigations are secret.
What you are watching is a circus.
News reports say President Trump is suggesting a federal takeover of NYC and DC: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-suggests-taking-new-york-city-washington/story?id=123581492
Obviously the President has no authority to run a city in New York. What about the DC? Home Rule Act is still alive, and although Congress could veto new legislations, that still doesn't amount to a takeover.
What he can do, however, is to command the US attorney for DC. They have authority to enforce both federal and DC laws - in fact I've seen somewhere that this is why DC law enforcement is clogged. (Other officers of the DC are not "officers of the United States"; the President probably cannot, for example, command the Mayor.)
We should cede most of DC territory back to Maryland (like we ceded parts of DC back to Virginia in 1847), and only have DC limited to the Federal Triangle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Triangle
Several govt agencies are already outside of DC anyway.
Northern Virginia: Pentagon, CIA, NGA, NRO Maryland: NSA
The problem is that Maryland doesn't want it.
DC was intended as a sort of quarantine zone for the federal government, at least in part. They wanted the capitol to not be within the jurisdiction of any state, but also for no state to have an interest in aggrandizing the capitol.
A success on the first front, but an utter failure on the second.
How was it an utter failure on the second?
Virginia and Maryland have huge workforces who draw salary from federal spending, both workers who commute to DC and those who work in the DC suburbs.
In addition to apedad's list of IC components, Maryland has NIH, FDA, NOAA and others. Virginia has USPTO, DIA, the Pentagon, TSA, DEA and more.
Those two states get a lot of tax revenue both from those individual employees and from federal contractors, and so benefit from taxes paid by the rest if the country. (To be clear, this is probably unavoidable to some extent with a large central government, but even the Federalists among the Founders wanted to avoid having that large of a central government.)
One note: DIA is located on Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling (JBAB) in DC.
And while the rest of the country pays taxes that runs these agencies and pays employees' and contractors' salaries, the rest of the country also receives the benefits these agencies provide, e.g., no hijacked planes since 9/11, no foreign military invasions, foreign intelligence operations which disrupted/destroyed hostile actions, etc.
If the left can treat expenditures on military bases as a benefit to Southern states, the right can treat expenditures on federal agencies as a benefit to states surrounding DC.
The fact is that, if the federal government vanished tomorrow, a substantial chunk of the neighboring states' economies would vanish with it. So both states have a serious interest in preserving and enlarging federal expenditures.
Just as the states where military bases are situated have an interest in increased military spending...
"If the left can treat expenditures on military bases as a benefit to Southern states . . . . "
The top ten states for total Defense spending in Fiscal Year 2023 were:
Rank State Defense Spending (billions) 1 Texas $71.6 2 Virginia $68.5 3 California $60.8 4 Florida $32.2 5 Maryland $27.8 6 Connecticut $25.3 7 Pennsylvania $21.8 8 Arizona $17.0 9 Massachusetts $16.8 10 Washington $15.5
Seems rather mixed to me.
There is a sub base in Bangor, WA but I suspect most of that state's spending is Boeing. CT also has a sub base but a lot of that state is Electric Boat (subs) and Sikorsky (helicopters). Massachusetts is high tech weapons and parts for them, mostly along Route 128 (I-95) that loops around Boston.
Massachusetts is proximity to MIT in Boston. CT & WA are locations of specific companies -- e.g. periscopes for US subs have been made in Northampton, MA since before WWII.
Benefits would be the same if the DEA were in Detroit -- Michigan or Maine.
It doesn't really matter if Maryland doesn't want it. Congress has the power to do it. It may be the case that no State can *lose* territory without its consent (per the Constitution, and pace West Virginia,) but there's no bar on regaining its lost territory or expanding into new territory (if not obtained from another State. Moreover, all Congress would have to do would be to include residents of DC into MD for purposes of House apportionment and voting for Senators and representatives. Best though would be a repeal of the 23rd amendment as part of the process.
Moreover, all Congress would have to do would be to include residents of DC into MD for purposes of House apportionment and voting for Senators and representatives.
Not sure how you think Congress could do that (without making DC part of MD).
Brett, what was never anticipated was DC becoming a residential community -- there are parts of DC where one side of the street is DC and the other MD -- to the point where the DC and Tacoma Park PD share jurisdiction and both patrol it. See: https://safetakoma.org/
“what was never anticipated was DC becoming a residential community”
Huh, I agree with Ediot on something.
Also, NIH is in Maryland and CDC in Atlanta.
"We should cede most of DC territory back to Maryland (like we ceded parts of DC back to Virginia in 1847), and only have DC limited to the Federal Triangle"
Yes but you need to repeal the 23rd amendment.
Otherwise the incumbent president would control 3 electoral votes.
I thought the President (and the members of Congress) still are domiciled in their home district?
I guess, but if he gets 3 electoral votes, he'll change it to DC
No local taxes either! [if its reduced to the government area only]
Be kind of funny if the vice president voted for the other party and DC's presidential vote ended in a tie.
He doesn't need authority to run a city in New York. All he needs to do is get Congress to condition their federal funds on their doing what he wants. Under South Dakota v. Dole, a travesty, that's perfectly constitutional.
That appears to be what Trump was alluding to.
Don't forget that NYC needs to replace those train tunnels to NJ, and this being NYC, it ain't gonna be cheap...
"he President probably cannot, for example, command the Mayor.)"
Sure he can.
Read Harvey Silverglate's Three Felonies a Day -- as Harvey points out, the USA can indict almost anyone for something, and the US Attorney for the SDNY answers to Trump.
I guess Trump is now a shoe-in for the Nobel Peace prize, given that he's now been nominated not only by the Pakistani military junta and the Congolese strongman, but also by an indicted war criminal.
https://time.com/7300791/trump-nobel-peace-prize-netanyahu-nominations-obama-flattery-history-explainer/
Martin still kisses his picture of that great genius Al Gore getting hte Nobel Prize, sooooo go from there 🙂
along with kissing the picture of obuma getting his nobel prize.
Because in the world of the Nobel committee, peace is not a state of affairs, but merely an aspiration and good words.
Preventing a nuclear war between India & Pakistan itself is worthy, even if Pakistan were run by the Jolly Green Giant.
The deadline for NPP nominations is January 31.
I didn't think Trump was serious about a third term, but now we know he is serious:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tsa-shoes-rule-expires
Sounds like he's a shoe-in.
The right shoe can make everything different. - Jimmy Choo
A nice example of how the meaning of the law only crystallises when the judges are done with their work:
https://administrativecourtblog.wordpress.com/2025/07/09/the-building-services-act-and-the-presumption-against-retrospectivity/
The facts of Adriatic Land 5 Limited v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2025] EWCA Civ 856 are straightforward enough. The applicant landlord owned a large building. That building needed significant works to restore and update its cladding and other materials to meet relevant safety standards. These works were carried out in 2020. In 2022 the Building Safety Act (BSA) was passed by Parliament. That Act contained a section (paragraph 9 to Schedule 8 of the Act) which states that “no service charge is payable” in respect to the services undertaken by the applicant. The question for the Court of Appeal in this case was whether paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 operates retrospectively i.e. does it apply to the taking of a service charge for works carried out before the BSA came into force? Or does it only prevent the taking of a service charge for works carried out following the enactment of the Act? If it was the former, the applicant landlord was out of luck: they would be prohibited, by statute, from reclaiming the costs of the works. (...) Statutory presumptions are tricky things. All three judges in this case agreed that the presumption is important, and that it can be displaced by contrary Parliamentary intention. As Lord Hughes said in R v Hughes, “the general rule of English law… is that a statute is prospective rather than retrospective in effect unless it distinctly says otherwise” (R v Docherty [2016] UKSC 62 at [17]). Newey LJ and Nugee LJ disagreed over what “distinctly saying otherwise” looks like in this case. Should the judges look for clues in the words used, or instead focus on Parliament’s underlying meaning?
The facts of Adriatic Land 5 Limited v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2025] EWCA Civ 856 are straightforward enough. The applicant landlord owned a large building. That building needed significant works to restore and update its cladding and other materials to meet relevant safety standards. These works were carried out in 2020. In 2022 the Building Safety Act (BSA) was passed by Parliament. That Act contained a section (paragraph 9 to Schedule 8 of the Act) which states that “no service charge is payable” in respect to the services undertaken by the applicant.
The question for the Court of Appeal in this case was whether paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 operates retrospectively i.e. does it apply to the taking of a service charge for works carried out before the BSA came into force? Or does it only prevent the taking of a service charge for works carried out following the enactment of the Act? If it was the former, the applicant landlord was out of luck: they would be prohibited, by statute, from reclaiming the costs of the works. (...) Statutory presumptions are tricky things. All three judges in this case agreed that the presumption is important, and that it can be displaced by contrary Parliamentary intention. As Lord Hughes said in R v Hughes, “the general rule of English law… is that a statute is prospective rather than retrospective in effect unless it distinctly says otherwise” (R v Docherty [2016] UKSC 62 at [17]). Newey LJ and Nugee LJ disagreed over what “distinctly saying otherwise” looks like in this case. Should the judges look for clues in the words used, or instead focus on Parliament’s underlying meaning?
For those of us who don't speak British law, what is the actual issue? Is it whether the landlord can raise rents to cover the upgrade costs?
Service charge, but yes.
(We're talking about leaseholds here, i.e. appartments that are technically being leased, but on contracts that run more than 100 years, at a "ground rent" of usually a few hundred pounds per year, that are protected by the law of property, are transferrable at will, etc. The leaseholders pay a service charge for the upkeep of the common areas of the building, but the law restricts how that service charge is calculated.)
Where did Parliament expect money for those upgrades to come from, the landlord's sofa?
The freeholder, yes. They own the building, so Parliament made the judgment that they should pay for upgrades to the building. The whole system is weird, so all the legislation around ground rents, service charges, lease extensions, and mandatory purchase of the freehold is based on eyeballing the balance of equities.
If Parliament overshoots and puts too much of a financial burden on the freeholders, they end up sued in Strasbourg, because the European Convention for Human Rights, unlike the US Constitution, does have a right to property. Eg. James v. United Kingdom (1986), where the UK actually won.
So, similar to a condominium here?
"Newey LJ and Nugee LJ disagreed over what “distinctly saying otherwise” looks like in this case."
I would tend to think that the very appearance of such a disagreement is a good indication that retrospective application wasn't distinctly stated. The presumption against retrospective application is pretty strong, I understand. At least it is here.
That's basically what they disagreed about, how strong that presumption is at (English) common law.
More from the blog post:
Newey LJ began by quoting extensively from the case law which emphasised the importance of the presumption against retrospectivity. He kicked matters off by straightforwardly citing Lord Rodger’s famous dictum in Wilson that “at common law there is a presumption that a statute does not have ‘retrospective’ effect”: [53], citing Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40 at [186]. He also cited authority that there will be, in some cases, “a very strong disposition” that a statute should not have retrospective effect for reasons of “simple fairness”: [55]. Finally, he quoted the old case of Lauri v Renad in which Lindley LJ stated that “it is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed so as to have a retrospective operation unless its language is such as plainly to require such a construction” ([56], citing Lauri v Renad [1893] 3 Ch 402 at 421). Nugee LJ, by contrast, highlighted Lord Neuberger’s assertion in a previous case that the rule against prospectivity does not operate as “some sort of substantive or even procedural legal right” nor is it even really a “a rule of construction” but rather a mere “factor to be taken into account when interpreting a statute or rule”: [135], citing Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 25 at [55]. He also highlighted that retrospectivity rarely operated in an all-or-nothing fashion, in a way that could be turned on or off, but rather applied in a spectrum of ways: [136]-[137]. He further pointed out that the presumption may be overcome not only by express words as well as wider circumstances: [138].
Newey LJ began by quoting extensively from the case law which emphasised the importance of the presumption against retrospectivity. He kicked matters off by straightforwardly citing Lord Rodger’s famous dictum in Wilson that “at common law there is a presumption that a statute does not have ‘retrospective’ effect”: [53], citing Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40 at [186]. He also cited authority that there will be, in some cases, “a very strong disposition” that a statute should not have retrospective effect for reasons of “simple fairness”: [55]. Finally, he quoted the old case of Lauri v Renad in which Lindley LJ stated that “it is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed so as to have a retrospective operation unless its language is such as plainly to require such a construction” ([56], citing Lauri v Renad [1893] 3 Ch 402 at 421).
Nugee LJ, by contrast, highlighted Lord Neuberger’s assertion in a previous case that the rule against prospectivity does not operate as “some sort of substantive or even procedural legal right” nor is it even really a “a rule of construction” but rather a mere “factor to be taken into account when interpreting a statute or rule”: [135], citing Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 25 at [55]. He also highlighted that retrospectivity rarely operated in an all-or-nothing fashion, in a way that could be turned on or off, but rather applied in a spectrum of ways: [136]-[137]. He further pointed out that the presumption may be overcome not only by express words as well as wider circumstances: [138].
I tend to regard how seriously the presumption against retrospective application is taken, as one of those barometers of where a state is on the free/unfree axis, as being able to undertake actions at a time they are legal without later having consequences imposed on you after it's too late to refrain is a basic element of the rule of law.
We're not doing so great in that regard ourselves, (See, for instance, the ex post facto application of the Lautenberg amendment.) but better than England, anyway.
Let's not exaggerate. No one is suggesting that leaseholders can claim back money from years ago. Normally freeholders charge the money before they spend it, or shortly after, so this case really only affects a small number of situations.
Ah. We have that in a few places in the U.S. Used to be very common in Hawaii.
It seems like the future of American Democracy is in good hands, or at least it will be once Elon Musk is finished arguing with his own AI chatbot and goes back to challenging Donald Trump for leadership of the American alt-right.
Unrelated: Tesla loses $68 billion in value after Elon Musk says he is launching a political party
Will he ever learn? Every time he picks a fight with Trump the Tesla stock price plummets, out of a combination of a) Musk fanboys who are upset he is distracted and b) Wall Street who think Trump will retaliate against Tesla by putting up its tariffs, reducing its subsidies, getting rid of EV mandates, etc. Because that's how America works now.
Off the top of my head Musk has come crawling back to Trump twice already this year. Is there any doubt he will be back in the fold by the end of the month?
‘Not Refundable’: Federal Judge Shuts Down Jan. 6 Rioter’s Request to Claw Back Fines and Restitution After Pardon From Trump
Hector Vargas Santos thought a presidential pardon would wipe his slate clean—and maybe even his wallet. But when the former U.S. Marine tried to claw back the money he paid in fines and restitution after his conviction in the Capitol riot, a federal judge made clear that forgiveness doesn’t come with a refund.
[I]n a nine-page ruling issued last Friday, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss sent the defendant packing with a legal precedent established 148 years ago.
“As the Supreme Court explained in Knote… once a conviction has been ‘established by judicial proceedings,’ any penalties imposed are ‘presumed to have been rightfully done and justly suffered,’ regardless of whether the defendant later receives a pardon,” he wrote, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1877 Knote v. United States decision. That ruling described a pardon as “an act of grace” that does not restore “rights or property once vested in others in consequence of the conviction and judgment.”
https://atlantablackstar.com/2025/07/04/federal-judge-shuts-down-jan-6-rioters-request/
Didn't know that.
I wouldn't expect a refund of fines any more than I'd expect a million dollars for spending some years in jail wrongly. Because none of that is wrongly. It's just a weird leftover power from sovereign kings.
"Grace" is an excellent term for it. You aren't un-convicted, just the sovereign forebears any further downside.
Sometimes pardons are issued as an act of grace, sometimes due to the belief that the recipient is actually innocent. The failure to refund fines makes a pardon look more like a commutation, and they are different actions, or at least are supposed to be.
However, I wouldn't expect the judiciary to give pardons any more effect than they can possibly avoid because pardons compromise their own power to convict, which they're jealous of.
“Sometimes pardons are issued as an act of grace, sometimes due to the belief that the recipient is actually innocent.”
And currently sometimes because someone’s mom donated a million bucks to the pardoner!
paging marc rich
Bookkeeper doesn’t notice detail of or meaning of “currently” in that sentence. Also, whataboutism.
accusations of "Whataboutism" is piss poor defense of your double standard.
Still struggling with “currently?”
Your comment is inane -
using the term "currently " is your effort to hide your double standard.
No, it’s my effort to keep it current. We can’t travel back in time and punish Clinton for his corrupt pardons but condemning the current President for the same makes sense.
Malika the Maiz 12 minutes ago Flag Comment Mute User No, it’s my effort to keep it current.
contraire - an effort to hide your double standard while refusing to engage in the merits.
Simply repeat your initial argument based on a misunderstanding pointed out to you between now and then without addressing the latter.
I've been assured "currently" means "in one possible future".
I think that was actually a pointed response to that "currently", instead.
What about Marc Rich? So Clinton did something similar. Does that make what Trump did OK?
If not, why is it a defense?
True both did similar -
Just pointing out the double standard.
bookkeeper_joe, in addition to whatabouting, does not know what a double standard is.
Hint: it requires two different standards. But nobody here said anything about the Rich pardon being okay.
bot DN confuses and distorts the meaning of double standards
I remember the democrats giving a shrug when it happened. Did they react differently in your universe?
Yes, in the real world there was across the board condemnation.
So you think Trump's pardon was not OK?
Did I say it was - no
But your / DN & malika continued resort to this whataboutism is a piss poor defense of your double standards and hypocracy.
Whataboutism? Double standards?
WTF are you talking about? Can you cite an instance where I, DMN, or Malika defended the Rich pardon?
B11 - did you fail to notice how many times malika dodged
So you don't like when wealthy cronies get a pardon, eh?
I suspect that President Clinton traded favors with Denise Rich, not Marc.
All assuming nobody misuses the autopen. Hmmmmmmm
That doesn't seem right to me. I think they should get their money back. If not, he can always sue like the other cop beaters have to receive what are basically backhanded bounties for services rendered
The European Court for Human Rights has unanimously found that Russia violated the Convention by shooting down the MH-17 in 2014.
More details to follow, but the main thing to note is that Russia has withdrawn from the Convention in 2022, has not participated in the case, and has presumably also not taken advantage of its right to have its "national judge" sit on the case. (I don't even think it still has a judge on the Court.) Also, this is an interstate case (Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia), which is also quite rare. I'm not sure whether the claimants asked for anything other than a legal finding, but if they did the Russians wouldn't pay any damages. (Though of course there might be a way to get any damages paid from Russian assets abroad.)
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/09/top-european-court-rules-russia-violated-international-law-in-ukraine
The judgment is now available: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-244292
(Apologies if the link doesn't work. HUDOC is a nightmare.)
The most interesting conclusions:
5. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of the downing of flight MH17; [Russia shot down that plane and therefore killed the passengers.] 12. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of extrajudicial killing of civilians and Ukrainian military personnel hors de combat in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; 13. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention; 14. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of forced labour in violation of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention; 15. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of unlawful and arbitrary detention of civilians in violation of Article 5 of the Convention; 16. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of the unjustified transfer and displacement of civilians and application of filtration measures in violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 22. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of the transfer to Russia and, in many cases, the adoption there of Ukrainian children in violation of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention 26. Holds, unanimously, that the respondent State must without delay release or safely return all persons who were deprived of liberty on Ukrainian territory under occupation by the Russian and Russian-controlled forces in breach of Article 5 of the Convention before 16 September 2022 and who are still in the custody of the Russian authorities; 27. Holds, unanimously, that the respondent State must without delay cooperate in the establishment of an international and independent mechanism to secure, as soon as possible and with due consideration of the children’s best interests, the identification of all children transferred from Ukraine to Russia and Russian-controlled territory before 16 September 2022, the restoration of contact between these children and their surviving family members or legal guardians and the children’s safe reunification with their families or legal guardians;
5. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of the downing of flight MH17; [Russia shot down that plane and therefore killed the passengers.]
12. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of extrajudicial killing of civilians and Ukrainian military personnel hors de combat in violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
13. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
14. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of forced labour in violation of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention;
15. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of unlawful and arbitrary detention of civilians in violation of Article 5 of the Convention;
16. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of the unjustified transfer and displacement of civilians and application of filtration measures in violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
22. Holds, unanimously, that there has been an administrative practice of the transfer to Russia and, in many cases, the adoption there of Ukrainian children in violation of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention
26. Holds, unanimously, that the respondent State must without delay release or safely return all persons who were deprived of liberty on Ukrainian territory under occupation by the Russian and Russian-controlled forces in breach of Article 5 of the Convention before 16 September 2022 and who are still in the custody of the Russian authorities;
27. Holds, unanimously, that the respondent State must without delay cooperate in the establishment of an international and independent mechanism to secure, as soon as possible and with due consideration of the children’s best interests, the identification of all children transferred from Ukraine to Russia and Russian-controlled territory before 16 September 2022, the restoration of contact between these children and their surviving family members or legal guardians and the children’s safe reunification with their families or legal guardians;
As expected, no request for damages.
Interesting, how many Divisions does the European Court for Human Rights have?
Frank
"in 2014"
Timely decision!
Finally back in NYC. Car caught fire in the Lincoln tunnel yesterday, so I had to spend ~2 hours commuting in total, going to Port Authority, waiting for the bus, they announced the buses aren’t coming, going to the bridge, jitney … (yes this would be easier if I wasn’t temporarily staying in NJ whilst locking down the apartment).
Why is the commuting infrastructure of the wealthiest city in the world like this??? I love NYC but there is this capacity New Yorkers have to just accept, and even celebrate, mediocre processes I don’t get.
And, say, in Boston, this stuff happened too, but there will be a shuttle bus. Or the apps know the train is down and give you another route. Here they were like, oh you can use PATH, but the path goes to a different place! And Google Maps is saying wait 15 for another bus even though they aren’t coming at all.
And a point I keep making is I don’t care too much how much a bus ticket is, I only care that it exists as a legible transaction, which would allow me to claim a tax deduction. Or it’s a business expense. Or if this shit I can dispute it later. Or something. The financial capital of the world ought to understand …
In short: Because on the other side of the Hudson River is a different state, while all of Boston's wider metropolitan area is still in Massachusetts.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a jointly operated quasi-governmental authority that is responsible for operating all the interstate trans-Hudson crossings, the airports (JFK, LaGuardia, Newark), and various other assets (e.g. PA Bus Terminal, PATH trains, etc.)
Within New York, the Metropolitan Transporation Authority handles similar type of infrastructure: bridges, tunnels, subways, commuter trains (Long Island Railroad, Metro-North Railroad).
There's substantial planning and coordination between the two.
The MBTA commuter rail already goes to RI and would go to NH except the NH town they would end at won't let them leave trains there. And isn't very good with service interruptions.
"Why is the commuting infrastructure of the wealthiest city in the world like this???"
The very existence of NYC was predicated on limitations in communications and transport that no longer exist, and the need to have a huge number of people in close proximity to minimize the expense of both. Since the justification for NYC's very existence is gone, so is the sort of cash flow that would be required to keep it working properly.
NYC is obsolete, and obsolete things don't get maintained properly.
"The very existence of NYC was predicated on limitations in communications and transport that no longer exist . . . . "
Tell that to all the bosses that demanded back-to-work.
The cost per person of keeping a city viable goes up with increasing population density. Everything gets harder. NYC had a sky high population density because the value of having those people close enough to meet in person was high enough to justify that cost.
Improving technology has reduced, though not eliminated, the gains from physical proximity, and so NYC level population densities are no longer cost effective.
“Everything gets harder.”
Like counting votes.
I'm pretty sure counting votes isn't relevantly analogous to bringing in water or taking out sewage, but rather is actually one of those things where physical proximity brings (diminishing) advantages.
Sure. You stumbled into an inconvenient truth and want to get out of it now. Cities are robustly more complex and everything-from traffic to vote counting-naturally takes more time.
Well, more complex. The actual complaint above was that they weren't robustly so...
You can't enjoy healthcare, education, culture, etc., from afar.
And NYC is steadily rebounding its population after decreasing due to COVID.
Seems like many people don't agree with your assessment.
"And NYC is steadily rebounding its population after decreasing due to COVID."
New York City Metro Area Population
Of course, that's the "metro area". Back when I still lived on 16 acres in Michigan, surrounded by corn fields, I lived within the "Detroit metro area"... At least according to Detroit.
I used this source for NYC: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/downloads/pdf/our-work/reports/new-york-city-population-estimates-and-trends_may-2025.pdf
Detroit is a special case. I can't find a source now, but my understanding is that local areas could add themselves to Detroit more or less at will, without the city being able to stop them.
LOL! Man, did you ever get that backwards. Nobody on God's green Earth has wanted to add themselves to Detroit in living memory. East Detroit actually changed their name to East Pointe just so people would stop thinking it was part of Detroit, the city was and is so toxic.
No, I just meant that the government of Detroit had some rather exaggerated notions of their position in the state. The toilet bowl wanted people to think of the whole house as "Greater Toilet".
The internet doesn't exist there? Telehealth. Need to physically see a doctor? 25 minute drive. Online education has been a thing for a while now. Covid helped make it super neat-o. Culture? If I want to see a museum/gallery/concert, it's a 75 minute drive. I don't have to live there. Hell, I can see more culture on youtube than in any city. I live on 20 acres and can't see, smell, or hear my closest neighbor.
There are some that would argue you have to see certain sights and works in person to fully appreciate them.
And I would probably be one of those people. My argument would be that you don't have to live in it. Visiting it from time to time scratches the itch for most people. If you want to live in it, that's fine, too. I personally don't think that benefit outweighs the negatives of big city living.
Meh, there’s costs and benefits to living anywhere.
ALL WRONG
From Thomas Sowell's recommended readings
City Economics by Brendan O’Flaherty (2005, Harvard University Press) This work makes economic theories applicable to real-world urban issues. Though it’s mostly accessible, some sections might prove challenging for readers with no prior knowledge of economics.
LOL. And yet, it somehow remains unambiguously the financial and cultural capital of the country, and in the case of finance, the world. So it seems like lots of people whose opinions actually matter disagree with you.
The actual answer is, of course, complex. As Martinned points out, you've got complicated politics between states and also between NYC and NY state government. You've got a big river between NY and NJ of the sort that very few other large cities need to deal with (i.e., it is *much* easier to build a bridge across the Thames or the Seine or the Sumida or even the Hangpu) so there's fewer crossing points. And there are surely cultural issues as well. But New York is probably mostly a harbinger of the lack of infrastructure investment that seems endemic across the country. Everything is stressed out to the max so relatively minor failures can have huge cascading effects, whereas if a whole bridge falls down in Minneapolis or they have to close one for three months in Memphis because it's about to do so, there's enough other capacity to work around the problem for a while.
"Cultural capital" is in the eye of the beholder. Financial? Maybe, but Wall Street doesn't exactly have a good reputation among Americans, so I don't think subsidies are forthcoming on that basis.
The financial services industry being heavily concentrated in NYC is more about momentum than anything else.
No no no. You can get authentic Chines food. It's totally worth the homeless, mentally ill, and getting mugged by all the culture.
This is what happens when you experience cities through YouTube or Fox.
Exactly how many bites out of a shit sandwich do you need to take before you realize that it isn't any good?
I don’t eat these shit sandwiches you seem familiar with, what’s up with that? Is it because you live too far from other sources of food?
I'd rather get authentic Greek food in Detroit. Easier to get into and especially out of, and the lines between the safe areas and where you'd get mugged in a heartbeat are pretty obvious.
I find this usually true in most cities (or places for that matter).
NYC doesn't need subsidies, it massively subsidizes the rest of the country largely due to the financial services folks you mentioned so no worries there.
Are you suggesting that they don't get paid for providing financial services?
LOL. More like it skims money off the top. Classic rent seeking. The rest of the country would do fine without NYC.
"somehow remains unambiguously the financial and cultural capital of the country"
Inertia and existing infrastructure.
Interesting take, and one I hadn't thought of before. NYC really needs tens, probably hundreds of billions more in federal money to be maintained properly, but without the "need" for NYC in terms of banking that may have existed in the past, Congress would never vote to spend the money that way.
May I gently point out that Brett does not exactly have an unbiased view of cities in general, or their residents, and that no doubt influences his opinions.
Oh, absolutely. While my impression is that most people who reside in cities are nice people, (Just like people who reside anywhere.) I do think cities have some serious downsides, and we'd be better off if we could get by without them.
How are you defining cities? I tend to like smaller cities/suburbs, but I detest big cities.
Nice people and serious downsides. How make sense of that. Peope are always kind but they frequently fall down manholes are live in unsafe buildings (built by nice people ?) NO, I've lived all over and cities are generally NOT nice people. Certainly not in DC, the poorer parts of St Louis and Memphis, many places in New Orleans.
Who would be better off, and why?
It may surprise you that lots of people like living in cities. You don't, but that's a matter of personal preference, not objective facts. Living in the suburbs or a rural area has downsides as well.
South Carolina, with fewer people than NYC, has more homicides.
Two basic problems with cities:
1) People in cities fail to reproduce. They have been population sinks for all recorded history. At one time you might have thought it was due to disease, but with modern medicine we largely eliminated that factor, and it remained true.
Many species self regulate their populations by failing to reproduce when population densities get too high. Maybe humans are one of them. And worse, cities have become influential enough to export those anti-natal values to the rest of society.
2) At high population densities, externalities become a much bigger issue, so people in cities are much more comfortable with limiting other's liberties. This, too, gets exported out of cities and people living at lower population densities get subjected to it.
There's a lot of evidence that over 800-1000 people per square mile people's behavior changes, and not in a way that's favorable to having a free society.
Yes. That's why the left wants everyone in cities, with no cars and relying on public transportation, so that they can impose their dystopian fascism on us.
No, it's because then they are clustered nearer to the Soylent Green production facilities. Get a clue. Sheesh
800-1000? I don't doubt your claim that there are some studies that say that, just surprised that the 'cut off' number is so low. Boston is 14K and is pretty chill. The town adjacent to the (larger) town I grew up in was/is a little over 2K and is considered rural.
So you made the jump to the new job?
Made a jump to a different team in the same org in the company, still kinda stuck in my career but I think it’s better? Idk.
I interviewed at Meta 9 months ago I’ll try again when the cooldown ends in 3 months, and I interviewed with *well known for generating controversy but really just data engineering* tech company a few months back, thought I did really well, but *shrugs*.
I’ll keep trying, think job change is really the best or only option at this point.
Stay put, and save like mad for early retirement: Roth IRA, 401K and Taxable. You want all three. You will thank me later for the tax flexibility you'll have.
But AC can "save like mad for early retirement" at another job just as well.
Democrats. Democrats and unions. Democrats, unions, and God hates you. But stay there, keep voting for democrats (even the communist ones), and don't be surprised when no one else gives a damn.
Cities have been congested long before Democrats unions, but I get when all you have is a Newsmax hammer….
The MTA is a much deeper money pit than the MBTA.
Starting with the Chairman/CEO earning over $400,000.00.
You hit an unfortunate moment at a potential hot spot, the Lincoln Tunnel. They typically get tunnel breakdown's and collisions cleared within around 15 minutes. Unfortunately, the Port Authority Bus Terminal feeds directly in/out of the Lincoln Tunnel, so the two are joined at the hip. Fire, or more concernedly, smoke is considered toxic, and especially in an enclosed tunnel, brings out the heebie-jeebies in emergency response protocols. (More and more often, there is more and more ado about not enough trouble.)
My car died a couple of weeks ago (cracked engine block), and I needed to get across the city to LaGauardia airport from southwestern Manhattan during rush hour yesterday morning. A very convenient combination of subway, bus, and some walking got us from home to airline terminal in 60 minutes. (We were at the gate in 75.)
The New York City metropolitan area's transportation systems may not be good, but they're pretty close to the best. And to borrow a phrase from one of the locals, "They're HUGE."
An hour to go ~12 miles? And that is considered good?
Yes. An hour to go 12 miles, in NYC, reliably.
There are a lot of side effects and inefficiencies that come from stacking people on top of each other. Think not of the number of miles I traveled, but of the number of people I made my way around while many (MANY) were trying to get to their destinations at the same time. It's a sea of people traveling through a sea of people.
It's a challenge.
The scale has other implications. My 75 minute commute gets me to a transportation hub, LaGuardia Airport, that has multiple per day inbound/outbound direct connections to every major airport in the continental U.S. Consider that Newark International Airport and Kennedy International Airport are both a similar commuting distance. Put 'em all together and I'd guess that the whole world is a shorter distance (measured in time) away from my home town than any other place in the world. I admit that's not a useful thing to all but a few people. But it's another something about the New York metro area, and invaluable when it matters.
That's actually pretty damn good if you're without a car.
Just as an reminder what pieces of crap Hamas is...Two items
1) Recently, Hamas placed bounties on the aid workers delivering food to starving Gazans. That's right...Hamas put rewards on killing GHR workers...the very people donating their time and resources to feeding the people Hamas is supposedly protecting.
2) Hamas has one sticking point in the peace negotations...they wand the GHR (Gaza Humanitarian Foundation) out of Gaza and the UNRWA returned. That "must" be done for peace
Besides the utter evilness of putting bounties on aid workers, it all has a twisted logic to it. See, Hamas has utterly infiltrated the UNRWA (the UN agency previously giving aid to Gazans). All the aid to Gaza's Palestinian residents...went through Hamas. And Hamas could take that aid and siphon off resources...siphon off concrete meant for building homes and use it to build tunnels. Siphon off food, and sell it to gain resources. And of course, since all the aid went through Hamas...if you were a poor Palestinian, you were dependent on Hamas. Irritate them, and you'd see your food (or your family's food) suddenly get cut off. Hamas was terrorizing its own citizens, through the UNRWA aid.
The GHR cut out the Hamas middleman. The GHR gave the food directly to the Gazans. Suddenly, Hamas wasn't getting their cut. Suddenly Hamas couldn't use the threat of food being cut off to keep Palestinians who didn't agree with Hamas in line. And that was a mortal threat to Hamas.
When people say "Free Gaza"...and want to return the UNRWA, what they actually effectively do is say "We want the terrorists back in charge, keeping the people under, using our aid to make themselves powerful at the expense of the poor Gazan people."
You had me right up to the last paragraph.
Then you went nuts.
It was pretty nutty before that too, because describing GHR as "people donating their time and resources to feeding the people" is a pretty rose tinted way of saying "this is what Israel does instead of properly feeding the people".
Are you one of the ones who wants the UNRWA back? So Hamas can continue to act as terrorist overlords?
The claim that UNRWA is run by Hamas is complete horseshit, used to justify Israeli control over the food supply in Gaza without, inexplicably, accepting the status of occupying power.
That said, I don't care who runs the food supply in Gaza as long as they know what they're doing and as long as they're not motivated by ulterior goals.
Nobody is claiming that UNRWA is run by Hamas as a general matter. It's different local despots depending on where the aid is being delivered.
"The claim that UNRWA is run by Hamas is complete horseshit, "
Really....think about it. Why does Hamas want the UNRWA back so much that they're willing to kill the entire peace deal for it? Why does Hamas hate the GHR so much that they're putting bounties on aid workers.
Think....
Far be it for me to speculate on the motivations of some profoundly evil people, but just off the top of my head: They want the Israelis out of Gaza, and they consider GHR to be an instrumentality of the Israeli government.
So...they're willing to kill the entire peace deal (which of course has Israel in Gaza)...to keep out aid organizations run by the US and Israel from giving out free food in Gaza?
Think about that.
Why does that surprise you? The foreseeable consequence of the October 7 attackes was lots and lots of Palestinian casualties, and Hamas clearly didn't give a jot about that. They're religious and ideological crazies, they don't care about innocent civilians.
Not run by Hamas, but allied with them.
The UNWRA's Commissioner-General confirmed their staff's participation in the October 7 attack, has acknowledged they allow Hamas to keep rocket emplacements in its schools (and defends this by claiming they file a written protest with Hamas each time it happens), and has acknowledge that their sites are locations of tunnels. They further acknowledge their schools teach children that Israel is illegitimate and Palestinians should control all of Israel.
Let's repeat the first thing: The UNWRA's staff participated in a murder, rape, and kidnapping campaign targeting civilians, including infants, for purposes of terrorism. This was done as part of a Hamas operation.
I think it's more a matter of him being automatically opposed to anything Israel does, but functionally it amounts to the same thing.
Not automatically. But true, it's been a while since Israel has done something high profile that I've approved of. The same goes for Donald Trump. That's not because I'm prejudiced, but because they're evil.
You think your conviction that they're evil doesn't color your evaluation of everything they do? Think again.
No, my evaluation of everything they do results in my conviction that they're evil. It's called evidence-based judgment. You should try it.
While I don't agree with you about Israel, Brett has a major problem confusing conclusions and assumptions.
NOt because of an intellectual fault of yours but due to a moral fault of his, hmmmm , does that even make sense. You can't know WHY he does what he does any more than he or us can know why you think as you do.
Postmodern moral relativistic bs.
As I would tell my philosophy students, 4 errors in just the phrase
1) the temporal position of an agurment is never a judge of its veracity 2) moral ! but you eschew morality in your other posts, so we would have to say that is just a lie
3) relativistic, well everything is so that is just logically NA
4) BS is a conclusion and not part of a syllogism
Assh the joy of well-stated kind putdowns of --- and I here I use the word rightly ---BS
“but you eschew morality in your other posts, so we would have to say that is just a lie”
For it to be a lie I’d have to have an intent and HOW do you KNOW I have that intent by what I write/say, lol?
Other than that, super agurment!
Did "minus the clever name" previously comment as "bye"? They seem similarly enamored of misusing logic.
Yes. He's been, at least (in no particular order):
• bye • Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!! • Speaking for Normal People • minus the clever name
Others, too, but that's when I started paying attention.
Don't forget the sadly inaccurate "I quit Reason in about 4 weeks"....
"they're evil"
The only Jewish state is not wrong but "evil".
Yet you get defensive when people accuse you of supporting Hamas or hating Jews. Interesting lack of self reflection.
"Hamas put rewards on killing GHR workers..."
Not if the IDF doesn't snipe them first, or massacre an entire ambulance team and mass grave them to cover up, or...well, let's just say Hamas is going to have to work extra hard to get a crack at the aid workers first
Be real Martin. The UN was letting its food be high-jacked by Hamas so that Hamas could sell it to Gazans at inflated rates to pay for weapons and enrichment of Hamas operatives. If you actually cared about Gazans being fed, you would not care who delivered the food.
That's the effect though. They want the UNRWA back. Despite it being utterly corrupted by Hamas. And it's going to be the same situation...an "aid" organization, acting as a front to siphon off resources to terrorists overlording over a poor people.
The situation you're describing with UNRWA and Hamas is actually the dynamic behind almost all 'famines' in the world: Outside aid gets routed through local government, and so makes the local population mortally reliant on local government. So local government sees to it that the need for the aid does not end.
True. It's much better to let people starve.
That's your take away from what I wrote?
Yes. You're giving yourself an excuse for letting people starve by spouting nonsense that makes you feel better.
Whether local despots use foreign aid to secure their rule, and so encourage the need for it, is a distinct question from how to respond to that.
When you blind yourself to reality because you think seeing it might drive some decision you disapprove of, you still blind yourself to reality.
Martin, there you go again, meeting an intellectual statement with a statement about someone morally. YOU CAN HAVE NO IDEA WHY SOMEONE SAYS WHAT THEY SAY>
We can have very good guesses about people’s motivations for what they say. Most relationships are based on this.
Not true at all....on both counts
1) a guess is not anything but a guess and that would be related to 2) and why serious relationships like marriage break up, because a guess about a serious matter will prove wrong over the long term
2) Most relationships of any perdurance are based on the first principles of a person's motivations and not on the motivations themselves, Who has pure motives anyway?? Do you 🙂
“because a guess about a serious matter will prove wrong over the long term”
That’s ridiculous, with other people are guesses are usually quite accurate, it’s why most human interactions are smooth.
Smooth.... re-read your posts. Does this apply to everyone but you
Martinned...I'm going to give you two options.
Option 1: Directly hand out food to starting people, ignoring and fighting off those "people" who say it needs to go through them (but take a big cut).
Option 2: Give in to those "people" who say aid needs to go through them, and take a big cut of the aid, use it to support their reign of terror.
Which do you pick.
Martinned knows for sure that Brett wants Option 3: Let the brown people starve. That is Martinned's answer.
Is either of those options relevant to the discussion we were having?
Sure. I was stating a problem, you immediately assumed that I wanted the worst possible response to the problem.
armchair, you fall into the same error as martin.
What about what happens so often , that neither option is legally doable
Local News Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless
March 19, 2012 / 8:33 PM EDT / CBS New York
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg's food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can't assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2's Marcia Kramer.
Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels -- fresh nutritious bagels -- to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg's food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.
"Besides the utter evilness of putting bounties on aid workers..."
So you don't like bounties being placed on doctors and aid workers, eh?
There was also a report put out recently about how Hamas sexually abused their hostages. Thugs.
OK, Otter, we get it, Ham-Ass can't sexually abuse their hostages, only you can sexually abuse their hostages. Ironically, if you or any of your ilk (an underused word if there ever was one) were to practice your Pre-versions (HT Col. M. Bat-Guano) in Gaza, Ear-Ron, Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, your Testicles would be nailed to the doors of a Mosque, like they did with Cicero's hands (HT M. Antony).
More Gibberish than Usual from )the Writer of the Frank Fakeman Character performed Here
No one around here needs a reminder Hamas sucks. Not even the MAGA antisemitic cohort you studiously ignore then you aren’t agreeing with them.
But you weren’t really here for that. You just posted to go after the left.
Israel remains a righteous cloak for your partisanship and nothing more for you.
True friends are not blindly strident.
Hey, look who is suddenly saying "We don't need a reminder about Hamas...just...don't think about it."
Jews are indeed the latest MAGA exploitation for scoring political points on MAGA's hate lists like universities and immigrants. It's actually kinda sickening
If you "actually" care about hate crimes and things like that.
Antisemitic incidents have skyrocketed over the last 10 years in the US. Up over 900%. Antisemetic hate crimes make up a majority of ALL hate crimes in the US now. More than all other races/ethnicities/sexual orientations combined.
https://www.axios.com/2025/04/22/adl-survey-antisemitc-incidents-record-level-2024
That is worth fighting against. Unless...you, like Sarcastr0, just kinda say ..."eh, not important. Let's move on".
SQUIRREL!!!
I know, right?! Like, where's the concern for all the gay bashing and antigay legislation? Make's Armchair's outrage look selective and disingenuous, or....dare I say...exploitative.
Sell your concern for all of God's creatures somewhere else, bro
“Antisemitic hate crimes make up a majority of ALL hate crimes in the US now.”
Where does your source claim this?
Well we did play a big role in Executing Hey-Zeus (but wasn't that the whole point of His coming to Earth? "Hey-Zeus went to Prison for Life without Parole for your Soul!" just doesn't have the same panache.)
King of the Jews, baby!
You must feel morally superior given that leftists have never stooped so low as to use people as political pawns before.
I think you should expound for us on this whatabout, tyler. I'd like to hear more
"Sickening."
Your shit stinks, so don't come here and pretend that it doesn't.
No . you are sickening. Jews are people and you obviously don't like them at all. And that adds 'hypocrite' to your other list of qualities
Points out rightwing hypocrisy on antisemitism. Get's reflexive 'no, you're the antisemite' MAGA race card pulled. You boys sure do love proving me right.
I am Jewish descent, yes, I admit it.
Actually your blowing off the rampant anti-Semitism on campuses is what is sickening
I despise all forms of antisemitism, including the performative exploitative use of it by the right. Heal thyself Don Nico, then we'll talk
A good object lesson Hobie, don't piss us off because its not hard to find an excuse.
"No one around here needs a reminder Hamas sucks."
You can tell this is true from this very thread! Well, no, but you be you.
Is anyone defending Hamas here today?
Yes
If you are anti-Gaza War, like thousands of Israelis, then that makes you a Jew hater and pro-Hamas. So whatever you've said today, Malika, it gets you into the broad gambit of MAGA's performative antisemitic hysteria.
There is nothing to negotiate with hamas, which is a modern manifestation of Amalek; hamas will leave gaza, or die.
Israel must finish the job of destroying hamas in gaza. And then hunt them down wherever they are in the world, and kill them.
That means no permanent ceasefire which Trump might view as an impediment to his Nobel Peace Prize.
Oh well. The Nobel lost it's luster when they awarded the prize to Arafat, another Judeocidal terrorist.
“How can people be expected to have faith in Trump if he won’t release the Epstein files?” Mr. Musk posted on social media on Tuesday afternoon.
Next to Hunter's hog, the most talked about thing in MAGA world was Epstein and all the juicy tidbits he surely had on the libs. But since it turned out Trump was probably his bestie, we all need to drop the subject...and pronto!
Hunter had a hog? Are we talking motorcycle, or potbelly pig?
Surely you remember MTG revenge porning Hunter's hog on the house floor
Apparently I don't keep up with that sort of slang, or just associate too much with farmers and motorcyclists. Honestly, I have so little to do with "MTG" that every time I see those initials I see "MGM" instead. Love those classic movies.
Yes, you need to keep up with America's euphemisms for the penis. I think Stormy described one as being a mushroom
No, I'm pretty sure I don't need to keep up with that sort of thing, and one of the bestest parts of Trump being President is Hunter disappearing into well deserved obscurity.
Yeah, Trump has several kids raking in money off his position and name to replace Hunter.
It is like a whole troop of Hunters, isn't it? Except these Hunters are trading national assets for billions, whereas (if a single email is to be believed) the OG Hunter traded the big guy's name for a few mil. Fucking amateur.
Wake me when anybody catches one of them doing drugs while shagging their brother's widow before the grass is growing on the grave. Hunter is a particularly sick piece of work, and I will be glad to stop hearing of him.
Why Brett, you almost make it seem like political corruption was never the concern
hobie : "Why Brett, you almost make it seem like political corruption was never the concern"
If Brett ever had a serious qualm about political corruption, it was banished from his brain and forgotten when he became cult drudge to a lifelong criminal and sleazy huckster. Kinda hard to be against political corruption when you mindlessly worship someone who reeks of it. Rather difficult to have a principled position against political corruption when you joyously voted for exactly that.
Though - come to think of it - Brett takes a "principled position" against increased federal debt even though he ALWAYS votes pro-deficit.
Ewww....too early....it's only 7:10 am on the east coast. 🙂
Only a beast would tar a man on the basis of 'probably' you disgusting creep
They've just released the phone logs from Epstein's Palm Beach house and Donald is all in it. Contemporaneous with calls from modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel who supplied Epstein with underage girls. So yeah...probably. Why? Do you care since it's your boy in them logs?
I think, like all other things, you miss the point little hobie. Apparently you and your little troll buddy Malika the whatever are now big Musk fans and followers. Good to know.
Well well well, looks like someone is a conspiracy theorist here. I suspect you’re going to be busy with all the UFO coverups as well. How can anyone be expected to have faith in the President if he doesn’t disclose the flying saucers and extraterrestrial cadavers held in Area 51? Or maybe the aliens are alive and well and working with the government?
Riva bot hallucination thinks it’s responding to Kash Patel or Dan Bongino.
You're quite the sensitive and paranoid little conspiracy nut, aren't you? Perhaps you're just really selective in your conspiracy insanities? Let's see. Epstein, check. Aliens, maybe? Just let put all your nutcase theories on the table so we can all have good laugh.
Again, Riva bot is malfunctioning, seems to think I’m the current FBI director or his deputy. Time for diagnostic!
so you weren't crowing about the imminent release of the Epstein files a few months ago when Pam Bondi pulled the binders stunt?
Don’t honestly recall how i may have commented. The circumstances of his death seemed somewhat peculiar. I know Bill Clinton liked to travel with him. Bill Gates associated with him. I confess a mild curiosity as to how many more prominent democrats buddied around with him. But now that an honest AG and FBI has looked at the files, the matter is closed.
But it appears you and the idiot troll Malika the whatever seem particularly obsessed (actually that may be an insult to idiot trolls but frankly I don’t care). Now do carry on with your new hero Musk and the conspiracy theories, if it makes you happy.
I simply don't agree with the conclusion; Epstein was murdered.
As for the thousands of child porn files, who are the adults in those files, and where where they created; Manhattan or Carribbean? Who else, aside from the US, possesses those files?
Ghislane Maxwell was convicted of human sex trafficking, but Epstein wasn't up to his eyeballs in it? Really? And the George Mitchells, Reid Hoffmans, Bill Richardsons, Bill Clintons of the world just visited Epstein's places for drinks and sun and sand? Yeah sure. Pull the other one.
My understanding of the situation is that Epstein actually DID invite lots of people over for drinks and sun and sand, exactly as a kind of defense. Who'd dare go after him when it would make that many important people look guilty?
And the defense seems to have worked for a while. Must of taken them a good deal of time to make sure he didn't have any archived blackmail files out there with some sort of delayed release arranged.
the late Virginia Giuffre testified that she was forced to have sex with others besides Epstein, including "a well-known prime minister," a prince (probably Andrew), and others. she named Alan Derschowitz (Epstein's lawyer and close friend) as another of her abusers, though officially recanted saying she "may have been mistaken" after a long, protracted, ugly series of civil defamation suits. so there's very credible testimony from her and other girls that Epstein wasn't the only client.
also, Alex Acosta gave Epstein a ludicrously sweetheart deal during his first prosecution. he told Trump's transition team (and later publicly testified) that he was told by higher-ups to make the deal because Epstein was "important" to the government. Acosta actually violated Federal law by not informing the victims of the deal.. why would he do this if Epstein had no dirt on anyone?
finally, Maxwell and Epstein just couldn't have been the only people involved in the sex trafficking ring. we have unindicted co-conspirators in the sealed plea deal, there's modeling agencies in the loop, the logistics of the flights the girls were on.. where are those arrests? why couldn't they be named?
the official narrative that they worked alone is absurd. it'd be like if the Warren commission insisted there were no bullets in the JFK assassination, and that he'd just sneezed so hard his head exploded on its own.
How much of a hack do you have to be to not mention Trump there?
As for the thousands of child porn files, who are the adults in those files,
Two people: Jeffrey. And Epstein.
Ghislane Maxwell was convicted of human sex trafficking, but Epstein wasn't up to his eyeballs in it? Really?
TF are you talking about? Maxwell was procuring girls for Epstein. Why are you too thick to get this?
And the George Mitchells, Reid Hoffmans, Bill Richardsons, Bill Clintons of the world just visited Epstein's places for drinks and sun and sand?
Yes, it is incredibly unbelievable that rich and famous people would socialize with other rich and famous people in tropical vacation spots. That would be unprecedented.
Even you are not that naive, David. = Two people: Jeffrey. And Epstein.
The Schroedinger-Epstein paradox: a list can be sitting on Pamela Bondi's desk while at the same time Kash Patel can say that there is no such list
Two ways to resolve the paradox:
1. Kash lacks object permanence and once a list is no longer in his site because it’s on Bondi’s desk or must not exist.
2. They’re both stupid liars. They made stupid claims before getting into office and early in their tenure. Then they had to stupidly lie about things when they couldn’t back up their claims and people wouldn’t let it go because they stupidly kept it in the news. The truth is these are not very bright guys and things got out of hand.
Hurricane Helene: “Western North Carolina, and the whole state, for that matter, has been totally and incompetently mismanaged by Harris/Biden,”
LA Fires: “NO WATER IN THE FIRE HYDRANTS, NO MONEY IN FEMA,” Trump wrote. “THIS IS WHAT JOE BIDEN IS LEAVING ME. THANKS JOE!”
Texas Floods: "“If you look at that water situation, that was really the Biden setup,” [I can't figure out if he's saying Biden caused the rain or the flooding]
White House Spokesman Monday about Texas Floods: "“Many Democrat-elected officials are trying to turn this into a political game, and it is not,” Ms. Leavitt said. “This is a national tragedy, and the administration is treating it as such.” “Blaming President Trump for these floods is a depraved lie, and it serves no purpose during this time of national mourning,” she added."
Playbook: Deep in the heart
The NWS did everything by the book, and had all the resources they needed to do everything they were supposed to do. It just wasn't enough, because the people who really needed to be contacted were probably sound asleep by the time the warnings went out.
The actual problem wasn't with anything Trump OR Biden had done, but instead the decision to pass on an expensive warning siren system. Which decision was made locally, not at the federal level.
I at least thought we'd have 4 years where Trump wouldn't blame natural disasters on Biden. But I thought wrong
Turn about is fair play, but it's stupid going in either direction.
"Turn about is fair play"
What turn about? I don't recall Biden blaming Trump for natural disasters
Uhh, where were you during the big hurricanes in Florida on the Gulf Coast? Ian, Milton, Helene?
Oh? Did Biden blame those on Trump? I must have missed that.
You miss a lot of things.
What did he miss?
Biden blaming those things on Trump, doofus.
Did you not get I was asking for examples, ya doofus?
He was assuming you didn't hide in a cave for the last 8 years, I guess.
Biden blasts 'climate arsonist' Trump in speech about West Coast fires
"If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze? If you give a climate denier four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised when more of America is underwater?" Biden said in prepared remarks."
It wasn't even off the cuff, it was a planned attack.
Brett and Michael not clear on how blame works.
Hint: it doesn’t show up in a future conditional.
The online right's struggle with linear time continues.
Yes, Brett seems to be implying that Biden engaged in Minority Report-style future crime prosecution. That's pretty slick, even for Biden
It dawned on me yesterday that the kids and counselors in religious camps were maybe not permitted cell phones. If so, would that be something authorities would want to answer questions about?
Just yesterday? So you’re slow. I think some Life Preservers would have been more useful, and I’m talking about the flotation devices not the candy. Most cell phones don’t float very well
Kids and counselors in secular camps are routinely not permitted cell phones, either. It's not about religion; it's about unplugging.
Nieporent — If American religion is not about unplugging, why are private systems of religious schools even a thing? Do you think home schooling is more a secular phenomenon, or more a religious one?
But don't get me wrong. I may not be overtly religious, but if I had a button I could push to get rid of smart phones entirely, nobody would be fast enough to keep them from disappearing. So I encourage everyone, religious or otherwise, who wants to limit phone culture for kids, or for adults.
I didn't say that American religion wasn't about unplugging, and I have no idea what your question even means. I said that not permitting cell phones was about unplugging.
I think DMN's point was the character of the camp is really irrelevant to the choice to limit cell phone use. Because there's no time or use for cell phone screens when you're kayaking or practicing archery. Or sing-a-longs. Or campfires.
As a practical cultural prediction, I think you are mistaken.
I do not intend that as criticism of religiously-motivated parents choices about exposing their kids to what smart phones bring with them. I think everyone might do better to equip kids with especially dumb flip phones, without texting capacity.
When he was younger, our son would be equipped for those sorts of things with a phone watch that was capable of sending and receiving calls to only three numbers: Ours, and 911. It also let us track him, and received emergency notifications.
The reports I've seen said that the counselors, at least, had cell phones, but reception in the area was spotty, and there wasn't any artificial lighting available.
It's a bit early to piece together what actually happened from survivors' accounts. I'd say, "Don't camp in a flood zone", but the truth is almost anywhere can become a flood zone if enough water falls out of the sky fast enough. I experienced that myself when a 500 year storm flooded my house back in Michigan, despite it being 20 feet above the nearby river.
Bellmore, this is close enough to axiomatic that you can rely upon it. Even complete geologic amateurs can be taught in minutes to recognize the approximate limits of flood plains. What has flooded before will flood again.
It is time for this nation to begin systematizing the process of retreat from flood plain development, to reduce the public cost of doing it. There is zero choice about doing it. Water and experience will see to that.
All along the eastern seaboard are flood plains of rivers which previously were developed. Hikes through the woods in those places disclose the ruins of building foundations, with 150-year-old trees growing through their interior spaces. Flood plains are useful as wildlands, or croplands, but not as building sites.
You seem to have missed my point, which is that the limits of a flood plain vary according to the severity of the rainfall. A dry creek bed might flood every time it rains. My neighbor's property floods once every several years, I suspect money changed hands to get that permit issued. My home in Michigan flooded once, as a result of a 500 year storm that didn't even cause the river a quarter mile away to flood; It had simply rained so insanely hard on the hill opposite it that the water came down in the form of a wave and crashed through the basement window on its way to the river.
Where did the Mystic Campground lay on this continuum? Rather more at the flood plain end of things than the "Would take God violating his covenant to flood" end, as it happens.
But this is not reason to prohibit building on flood plains, because it is entirely possible to safely build on most flood plains, you just have to build appropriately. That neighbor's house I referred to? The first floor is easily 6 feet above ground, it's just their garage that floods.
No, this just suggests appropriate building codes, or perhaps something as simple as ceasing to subsidize flood insurance.
It's more than just not having the expensive warning system -- it was a combination of the NWS crying "wolf" too many times and a complete lack of personal responsibility. NWS said "flood warning" but the river already was 2 feet into flood stage the prior day when the NWS did that.
Yes, *I* would have noticed when the NAS *started* with an EAS (Emergency Broadcasting System) alert at 1 AM (the same way I noticed they were serious about Hurricane Bob when they gave the forecast all the way across George's Bank and to the Canadian shore instead of stopping at the Hague Line) but how many other people noticed that.
If I were a camp director, or camping on my own in a downpour where they got several month's worth of rain in a few hours, I would (at a minimum) be awake and listening to an AM radio if not the NWS weather radio -- and some people were wise enough to evacuate to higher ground.
The same river flooded to about the same extent back in 1987 -- that's within the living memory of anyone over the age of 45, definitely something anyone over the age of 50 would remember.
They have weather radios now that would turn themselves on when the NWS sent out their alert -- you can get one of those for $20 and they run on AA batteries. Most start with a shrieking alarm tone that will wake you up -- how do you not have this?
For less than $1000 you can get a police car siren/pa like this: https://firepenny.com/federal-signal-pa300-100-100-watt-siren/ That runs off a 12 volt battery -- you can put it in any vehicle or even have it running off a battery kept charge with solar power if need be.
Touch that off at 1AM in the wilderness and you would wake up at least half the girls -- tell them that if they ever hear it, it means GET OUT NOW and where to go and they would. Particularly at a Christian Bible Camp where they would know you wouldn't do something like this without a good reason.
I read that the girls couldn't see where they were going because it was dark there because of all the trees and they "weren't allowed to have their cell phones." What about flashlights?!?
Their Great-Grandmothers would have had flashlights in the 1930s -- D-cell ones that they wouldn't have used because batteries were expensive, but they would have had them. So why not these girls -- and for about $20 you can get a nice metal LED one that is brighter than a 15 watt incandescent light bulb -- and has a focused beam.
I hate to say this, but what this tragedy shows is how reliant on government we have become on government as a babysitter.
The county has to (and now inevitably will) put in an expensive siren system because people are too irresponsible to purchase and maintain a $20 weather radio that not only would have given them the same warning that a siren system would, but a few minutes quicker because some human has to hear the same radio notice and then turn the siren on.
And how do you run a camp without some form of emergency alarm -- even a large bell....
I blame female social workers.
After the National Weather Service employee responsible for coordinating local weather warnings for San Antonio accepted a buyout, the National Weather Service correctly determined that there was a risk of flooding and issues warnings, but the warnings didn’t reach the people who needed to be warned. I’m not surprised that Brett doesn’t think there is any cause and effect going on here.
https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/nws-warning-meteorologist-retires-20288340.php
What, do you think if he hadn't retired the cell coverage would have been better? What's your proposed mechanism for his continued employment saving those lives? Because, frankly, I didn't see anything in the article suggesting his presence would have made a difference.
The Kerr County Sheriff’s office didn’t tell people near the river to move to higher ground until 5:32 AM. The USGS river level monitor reported a new record high (breaking the previous record set in 1932) at 5:10 AM, so that was after the National Weather Service was not merely predicting flooding, but observing it. That indicates a breakdown in communications with local officials.
I know very little about Kerr County, so I don’t know what local authorities could have done to evacuate people if they had realized it was necessary at, say 4:00 AM. As you point out, in the absence phone communications, someone would have to show up in person at Camp Mystic, and I don’t know whether travel time or lack of personnel would have made that practical.
On some level, though, that’s all beside the point. Did the Trump Administration conduct an analysis that concluded that there would be nothing that local authorities could do about a flood so it didn’t matter if the local authorities were kept in the loop, or did they skip that analysis because Trump doesn’t care if a bunch of campers die? I’d bet on the latter.
or did they skip that analysis because Trump doesn’t care if a bunch of campers die?
That seems wrong. Trump and his people aren't that intentional. More likely, they neither knew nor cared what any of these agencies did, just assumed it was all waste, and slashed budgets and personnel indiscriminately.
Makes you wonder why Trump didn't open all the dams to help the people in Texas, like he did in California.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-03-13/trump-army-corps-dam-water-dumped
'If I were to make a flood it would be much better than this one. It would be a beautiful flood. It would be much better than this Biden flood.'
I must admit that I laugh at that sort of thing. My son is always playing youtube videos of people mocking the way Trump talks, and they're always funny. Especially the baby ones.
I really do wish my support in the primaries wasn't the kiss of death, Rand Paul would have been a nice President.
Ah, cause the dams in question were downstream, so wouldn't have done any good?
"Moving water to Southern California’s cities, he wrote, would require coordination with the state Department of Water Resources to pump water through a rarely used connection to the aqueducts of the State Water Project,"
So the state of California was even more responsible for the tragedy than we realized. Doesn't Trump have the ability to seize those pump stations and order them turned on in a national emergency, which this was?
And you know that if Trump hadn't done this, it would be the same thing as Trump '43 and Katrina...
Why, Ed. You seem to be implying - by inference - that the states of Florida, South and North Carolina were responsible for their own lack of preparedness and outcomes. And that Biden should have seized control of those states' resources. Or are you once again selectively picking on the victims in California?
Big difference between pumping through a rarely used state pipe that is there and not being prepared.
ou can see a picture of the Kern River Intertie here:
https://sjvwater.org/video-the-intertie-marks-the-end-of-the-line-for-the-kern-river-but-it-still-has-an-important-role-in-the-law-of-the-river/
The Army Corp of Engineers built the Intertie as a flood control measure. When in use, water flows from the Kern River (foreground) into the Aqueduct (not clearly visible, but you can see a bridge crossing the Aqueduct at the left side of the photo). There are no pumps; when the river level is low (as it is in the photo), no water can flow through it. The California Department of Water Resources explained that the Intertie could not be used during the wildfires because “sufficient water is not physically present at the Kern River intertie at this time.”
https://thedispatch.com/article/assessing-claims-about-trumps-decision-to-release-water-from-california-dams/
Trump ordered water released into the Kaweah River and the Tule River, neither of which flow into the Kern River.
The Athletic came out today with college football’s top 100 rivalries. The top five: 1. Ohio State vs Michigan 2. Auburn vs Alabama 3. Texas vs Oklahoma 4. Army vs Navy 5. USC vs Notre Dame
Not sure I buy number 5.
Not sure about Texas v. Oklahoma. Yeah that's a thing, but we in Texas think its probably Texas v. Texas A&M
Other than Ohio St-Michigan I think inter-state (or in the case of Army Navy service) rivalries tend to create more heat.
Of course I’m prejudiced but from 2009-2013 (that’s 5 Seasons for you Big 10 fans) the Iron Bowl Winner played in the BCS Title game (back when only the top 2 made it, unlike the Abortion the CFP is now(yes I know Auburn hasn’t made one since 2013) Iron Bowl beats them all, it’s like Catholics/Protestants in Ireland, Shit-it’s/Sunni, Palestinian/Israeli, Yankees/Red Sox, but worse Greatest moment of my life? (And College Football-bawl History) the “Kick 6” in the 2013 game (Nick Satan still has nightmares)
I don’t agree with the weird, sad writer of the Frank Fakeman character performed here much, but I lmfao’ed watching that kick return on Alabama.
Chris Davis is still running
"Of course I’m prejudiced..."
The only rivalry that counts is Oxford v Cambridge. Pay no attention to arrivistes 🙂
rivalry? in what, being haughty?
Malika the Maiz : " ....college football’s top 100 rivalries."
Where's Florida vs Florida State? When I worked in the Sunshine State, I had a desk between a Gator and Seminole. When the big game approached, things got pretty ugly. I didn't have a dog in the fight, but often needed to duck for the vitriol.
did 1 Quarter at FSU in 1980 (had no GPA, all courses "Incomplete") before I saw the light, went to Auburn and became a "Gator Hater" (except when they're playing Georgia, Tennessee, or Alabama, which all exceed the Gators in Ass-hole-olic-ness) so I do root for the Seminoles (and I love doing the "Chop"), Problem is game hasn't been relevant for decades, even more so with the CFP I did love Spurriers frequent put-downs (lets see, "Free Shoes University" comes to mind)
One of the my favorite phenomena of the American Christian right is when its politicians and influencers just casually toss out statements that constitute heresy in most sects today or would have spawned several church councils in the 4th-5th century:
https://x.com/mtgreenee/status/1942225730651250990?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA
"God is God alone, and there is only one God."
MTG clearly doesn't read the Old Testament wherein are described numerous deities and demigods; Yahweh being one of them
The snake fight between Moses and Pharoah's priest was a fight between Yahweh and a real, existing Egyptian god. The purpose was to demonstrate Yahweh was toughest, not that there were no other gods.
I believe this got corrected in Islam, where they claim Pharoah's priest was just using sleight of hand, no real other gods.
"You should have no gods before me" was a statement of dominance, not monotheism. He was a jealous god. Still is, probably, going by what some of "his" believers are saying.
I was watching a sitcom where it was tossed out as a given that God didn't have a wife. There is good evidence that many Israelites believed Yahweh had a consort named Asherah.
Israel's sometime worship of other gods drove Yahweh batshit crazy.
Some friendly advice, you should probably stick to asinine comments on the law and politics. The depth of your ignorance on religion is truly a wonder to behold.
Riva bot programmed to insult, not answer.
Queenie loves responding to programmed bots
I love laughing at all kinds of pathetic phoneys!
Says the Black dude who pretends he's a woman (My Bad, I mean "B-Otch") and I get the support for Abortion, less competition for you
The writer of the Frank Fakeman character performed here is grasping at straws. Guess the OBBB had his meds cut.
So, "hobie" is your alias? or is it just idiots flock together? Pares cum paribus. There is only one true God in the Bible, Old or New Testament. While the worship of false deities by other cultures may be referenced, there is no pantheon of multiple gods in the Old Testament. Any more questions you monumental f'ing moron?
The Riva bot is severely hallucinating again today. I’m not hobie. It also seems not to be programmed with information about Elohim, Genesis 1:26, etc.
The comment you chose to respond to with more embarrassing ignorance was addressed to the idiot "hobie." I was not addressing the clownish moron Malika the whatever. I thought that was clear but clownish morons get confused sometimes. Because they're clownish morons I guess.
As clear as Genesis 1:26?
The word Elohim in Genesis 1 is, in context and grammar, clearly understood to refer to the one true Creator God in both Jewish and Christian tradition. Malika the whatever is clearly understood to be an ignorant religious bigot who should probably stop embarrassing himself, or herself, or whatever.
It’s plural, goof-bot.
Though it is fun to see pronoun police who hate they go all in on “well, *technically* Elohim is plural but in the context of avoiding problems for my beliefs it’s something else!”
The plural form of Elohim as used in ancient Hebrew may suggest many things, including a subtle reference to the Holy Trinity. What it does not express is support for polytheism. But feel free to keep on embarrassing yourself if you want, it's what you do best.
Ancient Hebrews were not describing the Christian Holy Trinity. Why is this bot programmed for antisemitism?
Like I wrote, keep making an ass of yourself. It looks good on you.
Psalms 82: "[Yahweh] has taken his place in the divine council, In the midst of the gods he passes judgment. . . ."
Also in Psalms: "“There is none like you among the gods, O Lord” (86:8); “For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods” (96:4); “Our Lord is above all gods” (135:5); “Ascribe to Yahweh, [you] gods, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength” (29:1); “He is exalted above all gods” (97:7); “For Yahweh is a great god, and a great king above all gods” (95:3)
Lots of gods hanging around, Riva bot. You, supposedly, are worshiping one of them
Pretty sick. Again, these are not references to other gods in a pantheon of Gods. The Old Testamebnt was written in the context of time when many other cultures, as ignorant as you are now, worshipped false gods. But these other cultures, could perhaps to some extent be excused for ignorance. You and your clownish troll buddies are something inexcusable.
It doesn’t say “among false gods” it says “among the gods.” Diagnostic time!
Although the text was originally written in ancient Hebrew, English may similarly refer to the "King of kings" or "the Lord of Lords." The intent is to convey the majesty and supremacy of god, similar to a royal we. But I keep forgetting, that you are simply an ignorant troll and such things are beyond your understanding.
But it does in the Targums, the definitive understanding for the Jews
... shall you bow down before me in great fear . " р q text from : " bowing down " ) before me . And I will also execute judgment on ( lit .: " of " ) them because they bowed down to them , created beings , for I am the God who visits the ...
It says they are CREATED BEINGS
You are wrong but you are proud and won't budge
Riva, you are correct. Hobie is hopelessly ignorant of the Bible
It is even in the Torah , which hobie has almost certainly NEVER read
Deuteronomy 13:6-10 New International Version 6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
"Please join us next Saturday when our esteemed panel will debate the issue: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism. Which is the One True Faith?"
This is the Wednesday open thread you imbecile.
Maybe he just likes the boats. The are nice.
Per chapter 20 of Exodus (RSV):
1 And God spoke all these words, saying, 2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me. 4 "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
This presupposes the existence of multiple gods.
No. If it presupposes anything, it presupposes some may believe in false gods. It is not a license to engage in polytheism. Your interpretation is beyond stupid and smacks of someone who bears a strong animus towards both Christianity and Judaism.
"depth of your ignorance on religion"
Amusing that all the atheists here are the true experts on religion!
Maybe the latter cause the former?
You don't need to believe in a faith to have expertise in it or to have expertise on the social and cultural contours of religion. One of my medieval history professors was a devout Presbyterian but she obviously had expertise on Roman Catholic history and doctrine and could converse much more intelligently on those subjects than most Catholics. And of course, classicists are experts in Roman and Greek religion but they certainly don't believe in Jupiter/Zeus.
Hatred of religion colors the views of the atheists in a way that is absent from your examples.
Saying Jews just thought that HaShem was not the only god, but only the best one is just an attack on belief, not analysis.
Atheism doesn't necessarily mean hatred. It's just an absence of belief. You are an atheist with respect to Hinduism, do you hate it?
"Atheism doesn't necessarily mean hatred. "
I guess in theory, but not in practice.
So in practice you hate Hinduism?
Atheism is the absence of all religious belief, not failure to believe some other sect.
A Jew is not an atheist because he is not also simultaneously a Hindu. Your statement is nonsense.
If the absence of belief in all religion means that in practice the atheist "hates" religion generally, why would it not be the case that someone with an absence of belief in a specific religion "hate" that religions?
"why would it not be the case that someone with an absence of belief in a specific religion "hate" that religion"
Because its not what the word means, Humpty Dumpty, you can't just re-define a word so it fits your idiosyncratic point
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
I'm using your definition and then asking you the implications of it:
Lack of belief in all religion = hatred of all religion
Lack of belief in a specific religion=???
Fill in the ??? and explain why it would or would not be the case.
THis has 2 logic errors and one language error
FIrst of all , if you ask a Hindu who has become Catholic they will say "Now I have the right view of God" they won't say "I am now an atheist in reagard to Hinduism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!" a meaningless statement
2) IF it doesn't necessary mean hatred it falls under the heading of the logic error :What proves opposites proves nothing. So some would say , like you, it is just an absence of belief, but others that it is a clarification of belief. and what proves opposites proves nothing. On to your misuse of words. IF I am an atheist in regard to some gods and a theist in regard to others, obviously the discriminant is Truth , now that means you have to prove that the Hindu god doesn't exist. And you can't escape it if you want to continue that farce of you only following reason. You have a faith but you won't admit it.
Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!
Adherence to religion, of course, never colors analysis of religious texts and history.
All you claim there is the inability of the mind to find Truth. I suspect you are a Muslim voluntarist and nominalist. It fits most everything you say and just to bring LOGIC into this YOU MUST mean that anti-religion colors analysis of religious texts and history -- and Poof!!! There goes your entire reply 🙂
Very true, and they can't find one Jew who held that, a fact that would stop a sane person cold in their tracks
False as can be and known to be so since the time of Plato.
here is how Aquinas states it
‘Now rectitude of judgment is twofold: first, on account of perfect use of reason, secondly, on account of a certain connaturality with the matter about which one has to judge. Thus, about matters of chastity, a man after inquiring with his reason forms a right judgment, if he has learnt the science of morals, while he who has the habit of chastity judges of such matters by a kind of connaturality’ (ST IIa IIae, q. 45, a 2).
SO your claim that intellectual knowing is all there is of knowing is wrong. Get all the facts you want about someone's mother, you don't know her as her son does. [ Though I know what you will say :Someone can know more facts about his mother than he does' True !!! But so what ????? ]
But that is illogical to say. As my NT Greek teacher used to say, "the most ignorant greek goatherder sees things in the NT text that an Oxford don misses"
Yup. Even in the 10 Commandments it does not say that there are no other gods, only that they not be worshipped. Nor is it clear whether the phrase elohim acherim means "gods of others" or "other gods" - both are possible.
Nope. Nada. Nyet. Nien. iie. Wrong. So incredibly wrong that wrong is not sufficient. There is only one true God in the Bible. The worship of false deities by other cultures is of course noted but only truly irreligious ignorant slobs believe that this creates some sort of full-fledged cosmology or pantheon of multiple deities.
“The worship of false deities”
More hallucinations, the term false is not in the discussed text.
I suspect your inability to comprehend the Bible is only the tip if an ignorant iceberg for you. Context and grammar often keep ignorant trollish clowns from understanding many things. Being a religious bigot adds to your problems.
You are amazingly fucking ignorant and I will bet, further, that you do not read Hebrew, let alone understand it.
When you do, get back to me.
אם אתה אומר
I too can use Google translate.
So if everyone now can read Hebrew, what exactly was the point of your original tantrum insult? Although such knowledge would complement an understanding of the bible, it is not a prerequisite and, even if it were, modern technology largely resolves the translation problem. So in a nutshell, you'e just being an obstinate a-hole, now aren't you?
:Using Google Translate doesn't mean you can read Hebrew, obvs.
lthough such knowledge would complement an understanding of the bible, it is not a prerequisite
It is not a prerequisite if you just want to understand the Bible in general terms, but if you want to discuss a specific point, absolutely it's a prerequisite. It may not matter to you whether an English translation of the NT says "congregation" v "church", or "priest" v "elder" but upon the meaning of ekklesian and presbyteron rest entire divisions of Christianity, and if you don't know Greek, your ability to discuss the subject is necessarily limited.
Take another instance - if you don't know Hebrew, how do you know that the translation of "satan" in 1 Chronicles is "adversary", not "Satan", even though almost all English translations make that mistake no doubt for fine theological reasons. Or that "Kiss the son" in Psalm 2.12 as seen in so many translations is also a convenient Christian error
There are plenty of other examples.
How could I know? Oh by reading and thinking?
But putting aside your unnecessary rambling, one need not speak or read ancient Hebrew to understand that Genesis and the Bible as a whole make clear there is one true God, not a pantheon of gods. Now go away. The matter is closed.
false and rebutted by the Hebrew. The fact there are no other gods is the core principle of Judaism and the word's use actually proves that
Hebrew translation of Psalm 82:6 ו אֲנִי-אָמַרְתִּי, אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם; וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם .6 I said: Ye are gods , and all of you sons of the Most High.
Hebrew is like Greek in that respect, there is the Most High God and the lesser spiritual beings called 'gods' but not the MOST HIGH GOD
The fact there are no other gods is the core principle of Judaism
:In later Judaism yes, but in it5 earliest days it was henotheist, which is why, for example, 10C does not say anywhere that there are no other gods.
No, we can tell from Onomastics that you are wrong, but -- -think!!-- they had one Creator , from the beginning, so , as I showed , the word 'god' has two referents and only one is divine.
No, we can tell from Onomastics that you are wrong,
On the contrary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
the word 'god' has two referents and only one is divine.
No - you're arguing that inferior gods don't count as gods. which is a proposition unsupported in any mythology.
There is also the point unaddressed by you or Riva, that the 10C could have said "there are no other gods", which could have come neatly and appropriately after the first commandment in Jewish tradition, as opposed to "no other gods take precedence", the implication of "you shall have no other gods before me", and "don't worship other gods" or "don't worship the gods of others".
:I find in such arguments that people are so sure of what they believe to be true in the Bible or are so aligned with traditional interpretation, it cannot be overridden by what the Bible actually says, e.g., when it's pointed out that the snake in the Garden cannot be Satan according to the actual text.
But that is provably false since Genesis attributes everything to the Creator , so on your belief that there are other gods they are created gods and what the hell sense does that make 🙂
and what the hell sense does that make
Note that in Greek myth the Creator is not accorded the same worship and respect as, say, Zeus.
Double note that in the LXX , Greek version of Creation, that is not so. Nor are you right about Greek myths anyway
The Platonic Myths by Josef Pieper "Myth is thus closely connected to religion and sacred tradition. The basic conceptual contents of these myths are, in Pieper’s words, “the idea that all being proceeds from the ungrudging goodness of the Creator; the occurrence of primeval guilt and punishment; [and] judgment on the other side of death”."
Trawling around looking for some supporting evidence until you hit on something that you think proves the point, I see.
1. Who creates the world in Greek myth? 2. Who is the leader of the gods?
They are not the same.
In Norse myth the Aesir are not the first gods either.
IOW that gods are created by other gods does not mean they aren't "really" gods. Ir does allow the worshippers of a creator god to claim that their god is superior - and indeed, one traditional interpretation of the Genesis 1 line, "and God created great sea serpents" is that one of the local tribes worshipped a sea monster and the line is saying, "our god created yours".
Less of a bad Old Testament reading and more of an unknowing embrace of Arianism or Monophysitism.
Hobie, it is WORSHIP no other gods, not that other deities don't exist, there is -- after all -- Satan...
I thought Satan was an angel
"Angel" is misleading - the word means "messenger", as does the original Hebrew word so translated, but there are other divine entities - seraphs. cherubs. In Job 1, Satan is counted apart from the children of God - the latter often translated as "angels" as well (wrongly) but he is evidently part of God's court, and in Zechariah he is some kind of divine prosecutor Job and Zechariah are the only references to Satan in the Tanakh (though 1 Chronicles 21 is commonly mistranslated to lead one to think otherwise).
So it appears he is some kind of divine entity but not an angel.
The whole fallen angel thing is not to be found in the Tanakh, and has the feel of an alien myth later incorporated into Christian mythology.
Only a poorly educated non-lawyer would not know the difference between material and formal heresy.
We are all material heretics I tell my college students. But only holding a view in stated opposition to the Church is actual heresy.
O, how we suffer from people who can speak but have nothing to say
“Only a poorly educated non-lawyer would not know the difference between material and formal heresy”
Sure. I remember when I took the mandatory course on the Council of Chalcedon 1L year.
IF you are saying you are not a Christian then be a man and SAY THAT
I'm not a Christian.
The "Church" holds no authority over me so they can go to Hell.
Well, I am a Congregationalist (Puritan) and we have an annual church meeting so WE have authority over the church.
The secular New England town meeting form of municipal form of government is a legacy of this -- prior to the early 19th Century, it was combined with the annual church meeting, with the most debated item being the minister's firewood allotment.
From your lips to Dante's ears. He put a few Popes in his vision of hell.
“We are all material heretics I tell my college students.”
Are you holding some kids hostage somewhere?
You think you're funny and since only your opinion matters to you that audience of one is a sold-out crowd in your eyes. 🙂 good enjoy yourself
Only a CATHOLIC would know what a heresy actually is.
Israeli attack on Iranian prison draws scrutiny:
“The Israeli military declined to comment about the purpose of the attack on Evin or the casualties. Israeli officials have described the attack on Evin as “symbolic.” Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, in a social media post, suggested that it was both retaliation for Iranian missile strikes on civilian structures, and somehow an act of liberation.
But in Iran, prisoners, families, activists and lawyers said that Israel’s action had shown total disregard for the lives and safety of the prisoners. They said the timing of the attack, at noon during a working day, also meant that the prison had been full of visitors, lawyers, medical and administrative staff.
Narges Mohammadi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who is Iran’s most prominent human rights activist, said in a statement that Israel’s attack “carried out in broad daylight, in front of families and visitors, is clearly a war crime.” Ms. Mohammadi has spent decades in and out of Evin, and is currently out on furlough.“
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/06/world/middleeast/israel-iran-evin-prison.html
Yeah, I wrote a little bit about that on Monday. It was a huge, intentional mass civilian casualty event. Gazans not being humans, you can appreciate why they've been carpet bombed into oblivion. But why these hundreds of Iranian prisoners? Why this prison?
I should hope there’s a better reason than “symbolic.”
Of course, logically symbolic can't be a 'reason'
Like Willie Sutton said about robbing banks
A profoundly stupid answer from the profoundly sad, weird writer of the Frank Fakeman character performed here. In a place like Iran the prisons are full of people who are their for opposing their tyrannical regime. That’s the last people you should want to kill if your opposing the regime.
Ear-Ron has criminals just like everywhere, and bombing the prison is akin to catapulting snakes and rats into a walled city, now Ear-Ron has to waste resources repairing the Prison or deal with more criminals going free, shows your priorities, Ear-Ron bombs hospitals, Israel bombs prisons, and that’s the one that upsets you
Israel’s pretty good at bombing hospitals too.
Iran’s draconian criminal code and repressive regime mean prisons are full of the innocent and dissidents.
Aren't you confusing Iran under the Shah with the current "government"?
No, the current government is a medieval tyranny worse than the Shah’s.
and Ham-Ass is pretty good at using hospitals as hostages for their Terrorists, don't fuck with the Ram, you'll get the Horn (I just made a Shofar reference!)
The blank check appears!
Guess you were embarrassed that Israel reversed itself on the gun policy 🙂 There is no pleasing you 🙂
I don’t know what you’re talking about. We have that in common.
Are you really that much of an idiot to believe that the IDF is carpet bombing civilian areas? Based on your prior comments, I guess the answer is yes, an idiot and then some. With some antisemitism liberally mixed in.
That's our Queenie!
I didn’t make that claim, hobie did. That’s our Frank Fakeman character!
My bad Queenie
My understanding was that they bombed the entrance to the prison, rather than the prison itself. (Or at least meant to.) Given that it's a place where a lot of enemies of the regime are held, you can see why Israel might want to do that.
Hmm, thanks, if correct that makes more sense.
Hmm? I guess you were really outraged by Iran’s deliberate bombing of Israeli civilian locations, including a hospital? You were so upset you couldn’t even comment on that, expressing your antisemitism…er anger, by being completely silent.
Riva bot programmed for weak sauce race card playing.
I read today that Elon's AI has been spewing out antisemitic jokes. Riva bot could very well be Grok
Hobie-Stank, you could be a "Carnac the Magnificent" Punch Line (I know, nobody knows who Carnac was, your loss)
"Hobie Stank" "What did Hobie do after he ate the Macho Bean Burrito at Del Taco?"
I'm sorry. I don't speak or read bigoted moron. Does this mean you were outraged at Iranian missile attacks on civilian areas including a hospital? Because it doesn't seem that's what you're trying to communicate.
Riva bot keeps experiencing difficulties. If Iran bombing hospitals is proof it’s bad Israel bombing the same….It thinks it’s defending Israel! Diagnostics!
Israel hasn't done "the same." But what is your point exactly? It seems you have a difficult time denouncing Iran's targeting of civilians and bombing an Israeli hospital. Why is that? Do you hate jewish people that so much you enjoy such Iranian tactics? Did you also celebrate the Oct. 7 Hamas atrocities?
The argument still is being made that the US should have bombed the Nazi death camps. It is a different issue because our bombers were needed to bomb the Nazi war industries but perhaps that is what was behind this.
"the attack, at noon during a working day, also meant that the prison had been full of visitors, lawyers, medical and administrative staff."
In Iran?
In Iran, the "visitors, lawyers, medical and administrative staff" well might be legitimate military tactics. This is Iran, not Indiana...
In Iran, the "visitors, lawyers, medical and administrative staff" well might be legitimate military tactics.
They would not be, in Iran or anywhere else.
Keep telling yourself that, more importantly, I hope THEY keep telling themselves that
Tom Paine in The Age of Reason declared:
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
A deistic god was the height of rationalism back then. I appreciate how he "hoped" for happiness in a future life. It is hard to see how you could reason out that with much assurance.
The second half of Paine's creed is brief and to the point. Shades of Micah 6:8:
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Also, John Adams:
“The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know...Do justly. Love mercy. Walk humbly. This is enough.”
About John Adams, his protest of knowing less with age was not a lessening of conviction but a sorting of things into opinions and certainties. Note the mention of 'atheist' in this quote
The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.
John Adams
I have rarely in my life seen such an avowal of faith by a public leader
Never forget that his father in law was a minister who had wanted Abigail to marry a minister and who felt that a lawyer wasn't good enough for his little girl.
Back then, ministers were what Federal Judges are today.
Yet he wasn't a tenth as religious and morally unyielding as John Quincy Adams so I think that shows the father in law misjudged about is daughter. I read somewhere credible that the letters between he and his wife if laid end to end are several miles long
All I know is JQA had lovely penmanship -- his father didn't!
"The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations."
John Adams must have overlooked much of the Hebrew Bible. Yahweh and his Chosen People were huge fans of genocide, including the mass slaughter of infants and children. All quotations here are from the Revised Standard Version.
"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you." Deuteronomy 20:16-17.
Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ” I Samuel 15:1-3 (emphasis added)
"Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16 (emphasis added)
"Then they utterly destroyed all in the city [of Jericho,] both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword." Joshua 6:21
"And the LORD said to me, 'Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you; begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.' Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. And the LORD our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining[.]" Deuteronomy 2:31-34
"So the LORD our God gave into our hand Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people; and we smote him until no survivor was left to him. And we took all his cities at that time--there was not a city which we did not take from them--sixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides very many unwalled villages. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, destroying every city, men, women, and children." Deuteronomy 3:3-6
"When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves, and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons." Deuteronomy 7:1-3.
"And Joshua took Makke'dah on that day, and smote it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed every person in it, he left none remaining; and he did to the king of Makke'dah as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua passed on from Makke'dah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah, and fought against Libnah; and the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it: and the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he left none remaining. And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish. Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron; and they assaulted it, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it. Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining; as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king. So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:28-40
In the case of Midian, as described in Numbers 31, the Hebrew army slew all the men and captured the women and children. (vv 7, 9) Moses was angered that they had let the women live. (vv 14-15) Moses ordered that all male children and every woman that had had sex be killed, sparing only the virgin females, whom the soldiers were to keep for themselves. (vv 17-18)
Pick one and I'll answer it. If you thought you had a point you would have done that.
As to the Red Sea , you read it in a way that even Jews despise
Midrash (from Megilla 10) "The Egyptians were drowning in the sea. At the same time, the angels wanted to sing before God, and the Lord, God, said to them: 'My creations are drowning and you are singing before me?'"
You have an ugly heart as the Jewish commentators themselves would say. You are ugly and you see ugly
Uh, I didn't mention the Red Sea, even though it is an example of mass murder by Yahweh, along with the Great Flood, the Tenth Plague and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I focused on genocides carried out by the ancient nation of Israel, which these other atrocities were not (although two were for the benefit of the Israelites).
Yahweh, as he is described in the Hebrew Bible, is the most murderous figure in all of English literature.
I'm not a particularly big fan of the Big Beautiful Bill. I also think don't support any SALT deductions at all, because I think they unfairly make the responsible states subsidize the spendthrift states (please spare me the tired and discredited trope about blue states "sending more to Washington" than red states). That all aside, maintaining the PTET deduction is particularly outrageous.
Why should a W-2 salaried employee have a cap on his SALT deductions, while a K-1 partner does not?
please spare me the tired and discredited trope about blue states "sending more to Washington" than red states
Discredited? Where?
What Republicans Don’t Want To Say: Blue States Are the Ones Bailing Out Red States
It's hardly surprising given the per capita GSPs, of course.
It's discredited because states don't pay a damn thing. People living in them do. And our progressive income taxation system means rich people pay more in taxes than middle class and poor people. That's true whether those rich and non-rich people live in blue states or red states.
So more successful people choose to live in blue states?
Or more that the blue states, because of momentum and historical factors, have more jobs in financial services/consulting and tech, which tend to be higher paying.
So the blue states are having to support the red states because the red states can't compete for the higher paying jobs or industries.
Nope, plenty of Millionaires in Alabama(not that much anymore, especially if your definition is a net worth of $1,000,000)
Blue states now control Red state industries and banks -- hence the profit goes to the Blue states.
Case in point, the businesses that used to be headquartered in Bangor, ME are now run out of Boston.
Like what? Also Maine is not a red state. (checks byline, Oh, it's Dr. Ed!)
states don't pay a damn thing. People living in them do.
Yeah we all know thar, and we also know that "states" here is metonymic.
Remember when Judge Oldham said that social media being overrun by Nazis was a fanciful hypothetical? That’s got to be an all-timer for incorrect statements.
NO, it won't because he misused/abused the term 'Nazis' and no correct user of words will countence such callous and heartless abuse of a word that stood for racist murderers.
Nazisim is an ideology. And people subscribe to it. And they’re online, especially Twitter. And now Grok ended up adopting that ideology.
Grok literally suggested Adolph Hitler as the leader for a solution.
Yeah, that led me to the conclusion that all AI is doomed to a dead end.
It does matter what model has what guardrails and directives, they are all being trained on the internet, including our comments.
Nothing salvageable can come from that.
What an old ham!
Zoran Rama-lama-Ding Dong is more of a Nazi than George Wallace (also was a DemoKKKrat, funny how they don’t change) ever dreamed of being, also funny that Cuomo, Adams, the Socialist candidate are still running (and De-Blaw-so any time now)say hello to “Hizonner” Mayor Sliwa!
This will get "45/47" a 3rd Term "TSA to Discontinue Requiring Passengers to Take Off Shoes" and even though I'm a rich bastard, enough Delta Skymiles to go to the Moon (and back), always fly First Class, I schlep through the regular TSA line with the Hoi Polloi, I enjoy it actually (and a few airports do put First Class at the front of the line) its like doing Calisthenics, Shoes Off!, Belt off!, Laptop Out! (or "In" at some Airports) Hands Up! (Don't Shoot!, I mean Don't Move!) and then reassembly is the reverse of disassembly. and at some of the smaller Airports (I'm talkin' bout you, Aberdeen SD!) you can get through faster in the regular line than the one for the various Castes ("TSA Pre-check", "CLEAR"....) because they have an Officer for each line, and if Cleetus who has the Pre-check line is back jerking off in the break room, no way Jim-Bob who's got the regular line is going to do Cleetus's job for him and is there a requirement that TSA Officers be morbidly obese??
I think you do it for the cavity search, Frankie.
Hey Now!
The writer of the Frank Fakeman character performed here doesn’t read the comments where he performs I guess, this story with this exact take was done above.
List price for Karen Read's murder defense was $10 million. No wonder she wants a movie deal. Could a public defender have beaten the murder charge? I recall reading years ago that if you owned a house you were not entitled to a public defender. The logic must be, even $100,000 in equity is enough to afford a lawyer.
https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/story/karen-read-trial-alan-jackson
Knowledgeable people tell me that $10M in fees is about right.
Multi-year ordeal, two trials, and having to pay for expert witnesses twice.
I believe she did sell her house to cover legal expenses.
That’s awful.
It is. I think she's living with her parents now. I hope she can recoup some or all costs via a movie or book deal.
If her defense was actually $10 million, what was the total cost of the whole fiasco?
The Boston Globe estimated the first trial cost $700,000 and the second trial would cost a little more. Government employee overtime is not nearly as expensive as private lawyer straight time.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.160.0.pdf
TL,DR: Government of El Salvador claims in filing with UN that US deportees held there are under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the US:
The Salvadoran State emphatically states that its authorities have not arrested, detained, or transferred the persons referred to in the communications of the Working Group. The actions of the State of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a bilateral cooperation mechanism with another State, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other State. In this context, the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities, by virtue of international agreements signed and in accordance with the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation in criminal matters.
The Petitioner’s notice also states that the US Gov’t failed to produce the doc, despite having it since April, and that the Gov’t submitted contrary information in a declaration to the court in May about who has control of the deportees.
This is the point I've been trying to make. These terrorist immigrants are federal prisoners under federal jurisdiction. As such, they require all the amenities, medical, access to counsel, access to federal courts for redress, and all procedural obligations of the BOP
And it looks like other judges don't take kindly to the prospect of the US gov't lying to them either:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.457483/gov.uscourts.mdd.457483.319.0.pdf
TL,DR: "I'm taking judicial notice of the representation by the gov't of El Salvador that the US has jurisdiction and control. Now please explain some of your prior representations to the court."
I'm not personally shocked at the prospect of political appointees in the Trump administration trying to hide the ball on stuff like this.
It's the coverup what gets 'em.
The only thing missing is a voodoo scientist and a half dozed social workers.
https://apnews.com/article/uk-post-office-scandal-suicide-horizon-software-70a6945a3acf945ea9d121425fdd028c
A recent Josh Blackman post led me to quote his favorite justice.
Justice Thomas, in a dissent to Saenz v. Roe, suggests the Privileges or Immunities Clause should be relied upon to protect fundamental rights. Government benefits would not count, but raising children surely would. He grants the right to raise children as a fundamental right in Troxel v. Granville.
Thomas explains in Morse v. Frederick how early public teachers instilled “a core of common values” in students and taught them self-control. The schools, in his view, stood in for the parents ("The teacher is the substitute of the parent").
Furthermore, "Courts routinely preserved the rights of teachers to punish speech that the school or teacher thought was contrary to the interests of the school and its educational goals."
What about parental rights?
"If parents do not like the rules imposed by those schools, they can seek redress in school boards or legislatures; they can send their children to private schools or home school them; or they can simply move. Whatever rules apply to student speech in public schools, those rules can be challenged by parents in the political process."
He reaffirmed these sentiments in Safford United School District v. Redding (search of student). Justice Ginsburg, e.g., was concerned about them not calling the girl's parents. Thomas was not concerned. The parents put her in the school's care.
The ability of public schools to instill values, with parents who send students there having the alternative of using the political process etc. to dissent, was somewhat limited (with Thomas going along) in a recent case involving exposing children to LGBTQ individuals and teaching them to treat them with dignity and respect.
Thomas now is more particular. He suggests in Mahmoud that there is "little to suggest that these lessons are critical to the students’ civic development." The Supreme Court, not school boards, perhaps are the best place to determine that now.
Thomas uses his concurrence there partially to address the bigotry of some earlier laws limiting alternative education. He has a selective concern about bigotry.
He appeals to concerns about state mandated "conformity." Again, depends on how you look at it. Exposure to a variety of people also addresses misguided conformity.
"involving exposing children to LGBTQ individuals and teaching them to treat them with dignity and respect."
lmao no it did not, do not Pink Wash the sick and perverted grooming they were doing.
Any evidence for your salacious claims, or is this an every accusation…moment?
Yeah, all those books that Congress and the school boards banned from reading aloud at their meetings because they were so degenerate and filthy but not banned when given to 5 year olds as a school assignment.
Pay attention so you don't always look like such a ignoramus.
This is a specific case, I see you have no evidence on that. So this is just you conjuring salacious thoughts about little kids. Yuck, dude.
Interestingly enough, only one person has endorsed the legal ability of school officials to force kids to expose their bodies and it wasn't the LGBTQ community or any liberal justices!
Why could a book be banned from being read aloud on the floor of Congress, or at school board meetings, for being graphic and degenerate while simultaneously being acceptable school resources for little children?
PS "exposing bodies" isn't necessary to identify a tranny. 99% of trannies do not have passing privilege. This myth of every tranny is passing you guys push is just so sad. It's completely detached from reality.
Since you clearly have no idea what I'm talking about I'll just tell you to read Safford v Redding majority opinion and the Thomas dissent.
In a more politically divided America the party with 50%+1 is more aggressive in pushing extremist policies. So we get school boards pushing sex on little kids and we get Congress defunding Planned Parenthood, when the people want neither.
In 2018 Gallup reported that Planned Parenthood was more popular than abortion, receiving an outright majority favorable rating. https://news.gallup.com/poll/236126/sixty-two-percent-view-planned-parenthood-favorably.aspx
So we get school boards pushing sex on little kids
To be clear, nothing about the case involved sex in any form.
Someone explain all the well-deserved abuse of Ketanji that overlooks the world's stupidest man , who said of her
BIDEN "one of our nation's brightest legal minds". In his remarks, he further highlighted her "tremendous intellect and character" and stated that she would bring an "independent mind" and "uncompromising integrity" to the Supreme Court.
Bernard was mocking all Trump supporters but I will hazard the guess he loves Biden and is afraid to make any positive statements on here, all sniping, all negative.
He said of her, “BIDEN?”
Is Justice BoneCaller being the posterchild of DEI not just the sweetest justice in the world?
Plane crashes, helicopter crashes, wildfire ravages, and now complete buffoonery opinions DEI is going to be come so shameful people like Sarcastr0 will be claiming he never heard of it a year from now.
It’s interesting how many people decrying how DEI lowers standards struggle with basic English spelling and grammar.
You sure showed me!! Because this forum is just like a published SCOTUS opinion, or flying helicopters!!! It's so important to be proper!!
lmao get fucked retard
So, you admit you’re inferior?
It’s ok, we all knew it (including those girls you liked).
That would seem to prove the point, to a reasoning person [hint]
Jews
VA ends plan for further layoffs after workforce drops by 30,000
A large-scale reduction in the workforce of 80,000 employees planned for hospitals and clinics run by the Department of Veterans Affairs is no longer being considered for fiscal 2025, VA Secretary Doug Collins announced Monday. A federal hiring freeze imposed since February — along with deferred resignations, early retirements and regular turnover from attrition — will yield a decrease of 30,000 full-time personnel through September and eliminate the need for sweeping layoffs, he said. The agency as a result does not anticipate further staff reductions, Collins said.
The VA in June employed 467,000 workers at field offices, medical centers and outpatient clinics across the nation, according to the agency.
https://www.stripes.com/veterans/2025-07-07/veterans-va-staff-layoffs-18366863.html
I was surprised at the number of VA employess (400K+), but then saw, "(a)s of 2023, there were more than 18 million living veterans in the United States, representing about 6% of the country's adult population. In 2022, there were 16.2 million veterans in the US."
How did we get 1.8 million additional living veterans in a single year?
Simple -- a 1.8M drop in re-enlistments and officers resigning their commissions. Looking at how Trump politicized the military, I'm surprised it wasn't more.
Also, it it a number of veterans or veterans receiving VA benefits? A lot of folk from the '80s are now turning 65.
As of 2024 total of all service members was approx. 1.3 million.
Fumble, their Bumble, 1.3 million is only the "Active Force" and as anyone who served could tell you, we've had a "Total Force" since the 1980's, with around 750,000 serving in the Reserves/Guard and unlike Vietnam, where joining the Reserves/Guard was a way to avoid Combat, it's been the opposite since Desert Storm, not unusual to see a Guard Vet who's done 6 or 7 "Tours" in the Sandpit, and with the Marines only about 10% re-enlist after their first contract (the Stupid ones) so you're getting about 40,000 new Marine Corpse Vets every year. and BTW, most of the Refueling Pilots are Guard/Reserve, you know, the guys without which those B2's wouldn't have made it 1/2 way to Ear-Ron, alot of your Delta/United/Amurican/Southwest are Guard/Reserve Pilots, great gig, they get to Fly and avoid the Desk Jobs (my fictional over achieving older daughter BTW, F5's with the Marine Corpse Adversary Squadron on the weekend, 737's with Delta as her "Real" job (737's arguably more dangerous)
You only owe your freedom to them
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts addressed an issue mentioned not long ago by forum regular "not guilty": consecutive life sentences. The court spends three pages rejecting the defendant's complaint that his two life sentences were consecutive.
Commonwealth v. Poum, https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/07/09/e13443.pdf
The court also ruled that an armed burglar was not entitled to the benefit of a "sudden combat" instruction when the unarmed occupants fought back. The suddent combat defense mitigates murder to manslaughter when the defendant uses excess force in response to a sudden attack. Had two larger men attacked him on the street, instead of in "a situation of the defendant's own making," he might have had the benefit of the defense.
Metha described the DOJ’s actions as "shameful" in his ruling, though he ultimately declared that the court lacked jurisdiction and the organizations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection.
"Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence," Mehta wrote. "But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law."
Great, so Mehta understands his role. Almost. Since when do we need judges giving us non-legal opinions on the morality of policies? How incredibly self-indulgent.
"Since when do we need judges giving us non-legal opinions on the morality of policies? How incredibly self-indulgent."
Man. I have some bad news for you about judges generally and Republican appointees in particular.
I want to laugh but I probably shouldn't. A lawsuit has been filed for custody of a two year old frozen pizza.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/07/08/metro/eric-hedin-lawsuit-highbrow-pizza-northampton/
Dairy allergic decedent requested a "vegan/lactose free mozzarella" topping on her pizza. She died shortly after consuming the pizza in question. Did the pizza kill her? Her father wants to sue the pizza shop. He doesn't have evidence without the pizza. The pizza is sitting in a police evidence freezer waiting for agreement of the parties or court order. The parties can't agree on a testing protocol. With the statute of limitations about to expire the dead woman's father is suing to get his hands on the pizza.
Lactose intolerance and dairy allergy are different. Mentioning "lactose-free" in addition to "vegan" sounds like two alternative ways of accomodating her condition. It is possible that the shop made a pizza with non-vegan lactose-free cheese and other cow molecules in the cheese killed her.
Biden's doctor took the Fifth in testimony to Congress, proving that (1) he was in on the conspiracy to cover up a palace coup, or (2) he thinks the investigation is a witch hunt with no other safe way out.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-doctor-kevin-oconnor-testimony-5c2a75c6bec319bb4ff8a417993e3d6c
Would love to ask Comer under oath whether he agrees that everyone who took the 5th during the January 6th hearings proves there was a conspiracy to commit to attempt a coup.
You'll be shocked to learn who took the fifth hundreds of times recently.
Or he knows violating Doctor/Patient confidentiality is a good way to get your Medical License revoked.
Frank, a serious question -- what EXACTLY do the MD laws say about doctor/patient confidentiality with regard to a lawful judicial proceeding? Can't the blood alcohol levels be subponeaed?
I know that FERPA has exceptions for both court of competent jurisdiction and US Congress
OK, Dr. Ed, as my job involves rendering my patients temporarily non-sentient (i.e. your normal state) I don't have a lot of embarrassing private stories to tell, I'm more concerned with why their EKG shows a recent MI, or that time "I almost died when they put me to sleep, they told me to tell the doctors if I ever needed Surgery again" I did do Primary Care a day a week a few years back, hoping to "Pay it forward", at a "Free" Clinic, turned out the only one working for Free was me, but I did call DFACS (GA's Child Protection Gestapo) on a few suspected abuse cases Bottom Line, I don't know, IANAL, and unlike you, I don't pretend to know everything
Wow, that wasn't kind or gentle, just bustin balls.
So you're an anesthesiologist? If so, I applaud you. I've had the unfortunate experience of a number of procedures the past year, some involving non-sentience (as you put it) and some involving semi-sentience. The skill of those administering it amazes me, or maybe its just the Versed.
I have never declined to answer questions under oath while acting as a witness in trials (mostly for stuff related to land use developments). I have seen internet posts (and movies which I know are not real) where a witness declines to answer citing 5A and without exception after never more than a half dozen declines the lawyer asked if the witness would continue to use his 5A protection and if the answer was yes, the questioning stopped.
Seems like James kept questioning Trump for four hours when it was clear no answers would be forthcoming. I have to give props to anyone who could spend four hours asking questions and every time getting a 5A response. On the other hand I am remanded of the old Snoopy song, "10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or more, the Bloody Red Baron was running up the score". For you experienced trial lawyers how is this normally dealt with?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtJ1Gnh9wPU
a witness declines to answer citing 5A and without exception after never more than a half dozen declines the lawyer asked if the witness would continue to use his 5A protection and if the answer was yes, the questioning stopped.
At a trial, you are correct. But this was at a deposition, and the deponent was the defendant, not a non-party witness.
If it had been between just him and the Pres as patient you would be right. But this was told to and depended on by the nation, not a scintilla of doctor-patient confidentiality
While I agree with you, what advice would you give an innocent man who couldn't afford an attorney? Isn't the 5th the safest way to avoid a perjury trap?
Advice? "Don't drop the Soap"
I imagine Congress is considering immunity.
That doesn't necessarily help with doctor-patient privilege or any professional duty of confidentiality he may have.
True, but those forms of immunity are not constitutionally-protected.
It was all true. He really was a cauliflower.
About time to look into using drugs designed for advanced cancer treatment for elderly men, to chemically emasculate them, off label on pubescent children:
"Today from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EDT, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will host a public workshop, “The Dangers of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ for Minors,” at the Constitution Center in Washington, D.C. In-person attendance is by-invitation-only but the program will also be streamed live and posted. The event will investigate whether providers of pediatric “gender-affirming care” (GAC)—treatments like puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries—engage in unfair or deceptive practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Featuring pediatricians, detransitioners, parents, whistleblowers, and legal experts, the workshop will challenge pediatric medicine’s reliance on self-regulation, exposing how the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) autonomous standards-setting, which pushes GAC with limited evidence, has fueled a medical scandal. By scrutinizing claims about GAC’s benefits and risks, the event aims to guide potential enforcement actions and establish the missing accountability in children’s healthcare."
https://lgbcouragecoalition.substack.com/p/ftc-takes-gac-to-task
"Featuring pediatricians, detransitioners, parents, whistleblowers, and legal experts, the workshop will challenge pediatric medicine’s..."
So basically it is a loaded panel. Regardless, it is always preferable to have politicians regulating the medical industry instead of doctors in that industry
The sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
"So basically it is a loaded panel. "
Like previous panels, only in the opposite direction. Enjoy!
Is there anything in life that doesn't make you feel persecuted, Brett? Lord it has been a long day dealing with all your insecurities
A good piece at The Atlantic: "How public health discredited itself" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/public-health-politicization/683409/
The reason this made it past The Atlantic's editorial leaning is probably the part at the end about RFK Jr. being more of the same. Public health is still an excuse to push an agenda that is not supported by the science.
Trust is like money. It can be earned and spent, but if it's thrown away stupidly then there is no obligation for the public to bankroll public health officials with a new loan.
My father passed away during the pandemic. The chucklefucks in the scientific establishment and the State of Illinois kept me from having a funeral for him while letting leftists protest, riot, and pillage to their heart's content. As far as I'm concerned, RFK deserves to run the clown show as the latest Bozo the Clown.
There is no "THE SCIENCE" Google recent research on salt, cholesterol, diabetes treatment, etc. ...changes like the weather.
NOt saying there is no Truth but I go with the group that is investigating what went wrong https://brokenscience.org/ THE BROKEN SCIENCE INITIATIVE
"It’s void of validation. Its deductivist approach stimulates results that cannot be replicated and its scientists are stuck in a publish or perish purgatory, finding “significance” at all costs.
Through education, The Broken Science Initiative will show any person interested that it’s time for a new pantheon and a renaissance that requires predictive power in science."
Forbes reports "Alligator Alcatraz" doesn't have facilities for lawyers to communicate with detainees. Also, record keeping to track detainees is not working. Some people just disappear unless they manage to get word out unofficially.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2025/07/09/attorneys-say-they-cant-see-immigration-clients-at-alligator-alcatraz/
According to an immigration attorney, ICE is racially profiling people in southern Florida to make a 3,000 person per day arrest quota set by Stephen Miller.
I expect the lawyer access problem to be resolved quickly. I'll forgive it as a startup problem (assuming it's a startup problem). If it's a tactic, it's bad.
Feed the lawyers to Nicodemus the Alligator. 🙂
Nicodemus deserves better.
Whattaya call a bunch of lawyers being digested in the belly of an alligator?
The Washington abortion pill case is over. The case was brought by blue states to counteract the Texas case that went to the Supreme Court. Back in 2023 Judge Rice issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the pill in order to negate Judge Kacsmaryk's preliminary injunction against the pill. After the Texas case was tossed for lack of standing the Washington case continued, slowly, until this week Judge Rice concluded that the FDA's conditions for use of mifepristone were legal. The preliminary injunction is dissolved. Formally, the blue states lost. But in practice they won. They kept the pill available and we are back where we were at the beginning of 2023.
Judge Rice did not decide whether the plaintiffs had standing. Procedurally, he should have even though the result would be the same.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66841644/state-of-washington-v-united-states-food-and-drug-administration/?page=2
DHS Kristy Noem said after the Maui Fires under the Biden FEMA, 1 in 6 Survivor’s had to Trade SEXUAL FAVORS for Basic Supplies to Survive
Meanwhile, illegal aliens were staying in $300 per night luxury hotels, using FEMA dollars.
Meanwhile, after Hurricane Helene, FEMA ran out of money because millions of those funds were diverted to transport and House Illegal aliens
Additionally, after Hurricane Milton hit, houses with Trump signs were ignored.
--- https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1943086446287446349
Every single govie needs to be arrested and sent to prison. Govies are evil, sick, and twisted subhuman demons.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/29/sexual-violence-lahaina-hawaii-wildfires
The source of the Hawaii thing is something you would obviously deride as DEI lefty nonsense if it happened under Trump.
She also has an incentive to hurl random accusations after this reporting:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/politics/fema-texas-flood-noem
And the fact that she was doing this which makes her look bad:
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/5389778-dhs-noem-social-media-followers-south-dakota-capitol-portrait/amp/
Also doesn’t help that she’s under scrutiny for this too:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/07/08/politics/homeland-security-watchdog-cuts
Every word here, of course, is false. Also, apostrophes are not used to make words plural.
1) I mean, Noem's obviously lying, but then LexAquila lied about what she said to make it even more false. She didn't say 1 in 6 traded sexual favors for supplies. She said "traded sexual favors, other favors for supplies."
2) No illegal aliens were staying in hotels with FEMA dollars. They were all legal.
3) $300 per night is not a "luxury hotel" in NYC.
4) FEMA did not run out of money because any money was "diverted" for anything, let alone imaginary illegal aliens. There are separate appropriations for different functions. All money appropriated for disaster relief was used for disaster relief.
5) One low-level FEMA person told workers they could ignore Trump houses; this was immediately reported and stopped and the personw as fired.
So all you had to do was show up at the border, fill out a request-for-asylum form, and the government would let you in and pay for your housing at a cost of $300 per night?
And they made all that legal?
I believe you are correct.
"$300 per night luxury hotels ..." E I E I O! Is there straw in a corner of your room?
So retard Donald Trump sent a letter to Brazil imposing a 50% (!) tariff on the country to punish it for (a) treating Bolsanaro unfairly; and (b) to "correct" for Brazil's trade policies causing "unsustainable trade deficits" with the United States.
First: even the most expansive interpretation of the power supposedly delegated to the president to impose tariffs does not provide him with the authority to impose tariffs because he's mad that his friend is being prosecuted. That's literally just the Mad King doing as he liked.
And second: of course, we've already gone over many times that Trump is too fucking economically illiterate to understand that trade deficits aren't a bad thing and aren't a reason to impose tariffs, but what makes it worse in this case is that the United States has a trade surplus with Brazil. The "unsustainable trade deficits" are not only not unsustainable, but do not exist.
I like to see data on that.
"U.S. goods exports to Brazil in 2024 were $49.7 billion, up 11.3 percent ($5.0 billion) from 2023. U.S. goods imports from Brazil in 2024 totaled $42.3 billion, up 8.3 percent ($3.2 billion) from 2023. The U.S. goods trade surplus with Brazil was $7.4 billion in 2024, a 31.9 percent increase ($1.8 billion) over 2023."
https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/brazil
GOt to jump in here and correct your unhinged rage.
Biden and Obama did many similar things. what you really want is for Trump to disguise the tariff but still be just mad !! Because that is what happens.
Updated May 29, 2023 - World Biden warns Uganda may face sanctions if anti-gay law not repealed
NOW THAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT
Gun control advocates have figured out that the OBBB may end up voiding large parts of the NFA, once the tax has been voided now its straight regulation that may not pass muster under the 2nd amendment.
https://smokinggun.org/congress-cuts-taxes-on-silencers-and-short-barreled-firearms/
"On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. While the budget bill provides tax breaks for the richest Americans and cuts Medicare, SNAP, and clean energy funding, it also contains a provision repealing the $200 taxes required to purchase or make silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and “any other weapon” (AOW) regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA), making it easier for people to obtain these dangerous — and once highly regulated — items.
The move is yet another handout to the gun industry by the Trump administration in the midst of plummeting gun sales. In May, the administration effectively legalized forced-reset triggers for AR-15s and other weapons, allowing companies like Rare Breed Triggers to sidestep NFA regulations on machine guns. The administration has also ushered in a “New Era of Reform” at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that limits the agency’s ability to oversee the industry."
"in the midst of plummeting gun sales."
I find it somewhat amusing that, every time gun sales dip a bit, gun control advocates say they're "plummeting". The statistics I've seen say that the only thing that happened is that sales shot up during Covid, (Maybe due to some of those Covid checks being spent on guns?) and have since dropped back to pre-Covid levels.
But I guess pretending that any pro-gun action by Republicans is in response to gun industry demands, rather than the demands of Republican voters, is a long standing rhetorical tactic of the gun control movement. One wonders if they actually believe anything that stupid, or it's just for public consumption.
Anyway, while in theory the end of the 'tax' on these particular items ought to render the NFA unconstitutional in application to them, I wouldn't hold my breath over it. Not only is the Rahimi Court not the place to look for following logic in a pro-gun direction, that reliance of the NFA on the taxing authority was a ruling from a time when the Court was much stricter about enumerated powers doctrine than it is today. Today, the NFA would likely be upheld in full under the Commerce clause, which the Court has amended to read, "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
In mathematics no effect is considered large or small until the population size is taken into account.
There are an estimated 393 million privately owned firearms in the United States. This figure, from a 2018 Small Arms Survey
So if sales go down the total , already astonomically high , has gone up. IF they go up it is all the more amazing. Those 2 effects are NOT on a par, mathematically
Now scientifically speaking what is relevant is the gun-buying cohorts
Under Biden, people became so scared of government support of violence that the most anti-gun started buying
Black Women Are The Fastest-Growing Group of Gun Owners
essence.com https://www.essence.com › news › black-women-gun-o... Mar 8, 2022 — Between Jan. 2019 and Apr. 2021, of the 48 percent of women gun owners, 21 percent were Black women
"Under Biden, people became so scared of government support of violence that the most anti-gun started buying"
That's a large factor any time a particularly anti-gun President is in office, especially if they have a Congress that might support them.
There was also an element of revolution inclined left-wingers deciding to arm themselves for a coming battle. See, for instance, the recent armed attacks on ICE. You can no longer assume that it's only the right that would be armed if things get ugly, the left have started arming themselves to make things get ugly more effectively.
No one was fearful when Biden was in office. Most you got were weirdos like you writing fan fiction to satisfy their yearning for oppression.
The left has had its people who have more guns than sense since Huey Newton.
Riiight. You weren't fearful, so nobody was fearful.
"The left has had its people who have more guns than sense since Huey Newton."
Well, they've got a good deal more of them now, and they seem intent on using them.
This as dire a threat as Antifa?
You want to live in a much more dramatic world than we do.
Yeah, at least as dire as Antifa, (Since it largely IS Antifa.) and at least as subject to your unrelenting denial.
Huey Newton wasn’t nearly the threat quote people took him for. But that allowed the FBI to spin up and become a threat to the liberty of a group you don’t much worry about.
Same as your paranoia here - conservatives with guns are great and patriotic. A few in the left get guns and holy oh no they must plan violence.
Search continues for 12th suspect in ambush at Alvarado ICE detention facility
"Song is accused of joining 10 others in an organized attack against officers at the Prairieland Detention Center just after 10:30 p.m., on July 4. Officials say he should be considered armed and dangerous.
Song has been charged with three counts of attempted murder of federal agents and three counts of discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.
A group of individuals dressed in black, military style clothing began shooting fireworks toward the detention center, then spraying graffiti on vehicles and a guard structure in the parking lot at the facility, according to officials.
"Correctional officers called 911 to report suspicious activity. An Alvarado police officer responded to the scene and, upon exiting his vehicle, the officer was shot in the neck by a defendant positioned in nearby woods. Another alleged assailant across the street fired 20 to 30 rounds at unarmed correctional officers who had stepped outside the facility," the sheriff's office said in a statement Thursday."
Of course, Huey Newton, too, was a murderer, so people would have to have taken him for quite a threat for him to not be nearly the threat people took him for...
What a mess: "Mar 8, 2022 — Between Jan. 2019 and Apr. 2021, of the 48 percent of women gun owners, 21 percent were Black women"
48% of what? What are you trying to say about 48% of women gun owners?
21% of 48% (about 10% of something ) were black women? 10% of what?
You appear to have started early this morning, Mister Space Comma. Call your sponsor. Go to a meeting.
Yeah, it is a messed up link. To be fair, it's not a well written article at the other end of the link, either.
Black Women Are The Fastest-Growing Group of Gun Owners Between Jan. 2019 and Apr. 2021, of the 48 percent of women gun owners, 21 percent were Black women.
"Ten percent of all gun owners were Black, and 37 percent were women, according to The Cut. But of the survey’s respondents who said they purchased a firearm for the first time between Jan. 2019 and Apr. 2021, 21 percent were Black and 48 percent were women."
Somewhat innumerate, too: If 21 percent were black, and 48 percent women, then actually of the 48 percent new women gun owners, 44 percent of them were black. Not 21 percent.
"...But of the survey’s respondents who said they purchased a firearm for the first time between Jan. 2019 and Apr. 2021, 21 percent were Black and 48 percent were women."
"Somewhat innumerate, too: If 21 percent were black, and 48 percent women, then actually of the 48 percent new women gun owners, 44 percent of them were black. Not 21 percent."
What? 21% of first time gun purchasers were black and 48% were women. That tells us absolutely nothing about the percentage of first time purchasers who were black women. Is it meant to say that of the black first time gun purchasers 21% were black women? Perhaps that was the intent, but certainly not the result.
Fair enough, there's actually no indication of how that's distributed.
I took it to mean two things:21% of first time gun purchasers were black and 48% were women.
Why try to assume it was a "dog whistle" meaning more.
So, the president of Liberia speaks very good English? Beautiful English. So beautiful that nobody's ever heard such beautiful English. That's what many people are saying. And, they are the smartest, most respected people. Where could he have learned to speak such wonderful and beautiful English like nobody's heard in at least two weeks? Perhaps, as Manuel might say, "You see, I speak English well. I learn it from a book," Who knew the Liberian's were so clever as that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoCslBHMDfM&ab_channel=Haroon1114
Good that the Liberian president isn't a woman or Trump wouldn't have known whether to compliment her English or hit on her.
Surprised that he didn't congratulate the Liberian president for his stunning defeat of Chase Oliver in 24.
Seems like the sinking of a Greek (?) cargo ship in the Red Sea is hardly newsworthy.
Iran poking the bear, indirectly, by way of proxy?
Well, this is pretty ambitious: The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power
Legal scholar Richard Primus is attempting to persuade people that enumerated powers doctrine is a mistake, and Congress obviously is NOT limited to the powers the Constitution delegates to it. There's a new symposium on Balkinization about it.
I find it remarkable that neither of the participants so far have yet said that the reason this doctrine got established roughly the same time as the Constitution was adopted, and had survived essentially unchallenged for most of 250 years, is that it's simply right, and that people really only object to enumerated powers doctrine because they wish more powers had been enumerated.
I've been wondering about this. The recent SCOTUS decision on nationwide injunctions was supposedly a big deal. But what significance or effect does it really have, if a judge can simply "certify a class" and then proceed to issue nationwide injunctions?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-blocks-trumps-order-restricting-birthright-citizenship-rcna217996
Aside from the legalities, as policy matter, does anyone care to defend the policy of awarding birth tourism and illegal border crossing with citizenship?
does anyone care to defend the policy of awarding birth tourism and illegal border crossing with citizenship?
Yes. US demographics, specifically wrt age.
So your argument is (A) we need to bring more bodies in due to aging population, (B) therefore we should award birth tourism and illegal border crossing with citizenship.
Obviously (A) is a big topic with many counterarguments. Not a foregone conclusion that we need to endlessly increase population (just to keep the ponzi scheme of social security going?)
But assuming for the sake of argument (A) is correct, the idea that (B) is a reasonable, much less optimal way to approach it is simply asinine. No, we should select for immigrants using any number of other desirable bases - not by awarding birth tourists and those who violate immigration laws.
I did not say it was optimal. You asked for a defence, and I provided one.
If we're going to directly incentivize childbirth in this country, might we be wiser to start with some targeted and meaningful incentives for our own citizens (who, at bottom, actually still want to have children at above population-replacement rates [see middle two bar graphs]) rather than just throwing up our hands and trying to bandaid the problem by awarding citizenship to outsiders?
Life of Brian, how does immigration policy affect whether heterosexual dyads who were here previously reproduce or not? Does it make them more or less likely to fuck each other? Does it make them more or less likely to use birth control? Does it make them more or less likely to abort in the event of an unwanted pregnancy?
I wonder if you may have responded to the wrong post. If not, maybe try actually reading mine and then give it another shot.
Sure. You have no viable response, so you reflexively deflect and run away like a scalded dog. Why am I unsurprised?
You are the one who posited a nexus between "directly incentiviz[ing] childbirth in this country" and immigration policy ("just throwing up our hands and trying to bandaid the problem by awarding citizenship to outsiders"). Please give us the particulars.
BTW, "bandaid" is a noun and not a verb.
Nobody knows how to increase fertility rate, other than massively impoverishing a country. It's not a question of culture or policy, because the drop is a worldwide phenomenon. Western countries, Eastern ones, developed, undeveloped, Christian, non-Christian: it's dropping everywhere. (Obviously some started at a much higher baseline, so their rates are higher. But they're still dropping.)
And the amount of subsidies that would be required to even conceivably make a meaningful difference are so far beyond what anyone has proposed.
Nobody knows how to increase fertility rate
Sure they do -- return to the childishly simple and generally foolproof biological imperative that has worked just peachy for eons. They just don't like what that does to the rest of the we're-so-smart societal model they've instituted in its place.
It's not a question of culture or policy, because the drop is a worldwide phenomenon. Western countries, Eastern ones, developed, undeveloped, Christian, non-Christian: it's dropping everywhere.
Assuming that to be correct (it's at best way oversimplified, but I'm playing along), then U.S. birthright citizenship policy is effectively hastening the demise of the origin countries by zero-sum appropriating their children.
Hopefully I'm missing something and the proponents aren't actually cheering on something quite so ghoulish.
Nobody knows how to increase fertility rate, other than massively impoverishing a country.
Remove education from, and disempower, women. That works every time. And, as you note, the result is an impoverished country.
I will bet that at least one commenter here would regard the first half of the equation as perfectly justified, and would deny the consequences.
As someone pointed out on bluesky the other day, the graph that shows fertility and women's education inversely correlated also shows fertility and men's education inversely correlated. (In fact, without labels you wouldn't be able to tell the graphs apart.)
"The recent SCOTUS decision on nationwide injunctions was supposedly a big deal. But what significance or effect does it really have, if a judge can simply 'certify a class' and then proceed to issue nationwide injunctions?"
There is a story told that William Brennan asked his clerks, "What is the most important word in this building?" One said "justice". Another said "liberty". Another said "equality". Another said "freedom".
Brennan told them, "You are all wrong. The most important word in this building is five."
SCOTUS has ruled against district courts issuing universal injunctions. It has at least implicitly blessed achieving a similar result through a class action.
As Justice Robert Jackson wrote of his SCOTUS brethren in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (concurring in result), "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
Was that supposed to be responsive to my question?
Yes. With five votes behind it, an opinion of SCOTUS need not make sense. So it is with Trump v. CASA, Inc. 606 U. S. ____ (2025).
Maybe none. It was a procedural ruling by SCOTUS, saying that courts didn't have authority to do one particular thing. So the courts aren't doing that particular thing. If they can achieve similar results some other way — something that both the Supreme Court justices and the Trump administration claimed was legitimate — then what's the issue?
I've addressed this numerous times. To do otherwise is to create a potential class of stateless permanent second-class residents (the usual term is "second class citizens," but that of course wouldn't work here).
Thanks - that tracks what I was thinking.
On the policy issue, I'm not tracking.
If we stopped awarding birth tourism, in no way would this create any permanent second-class residents.
If we stopped awarding illegal immigration, this need not create any permanent second-class residents either.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante ruled at a hearing in Concord, New Hampshire, after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any children whose citizenship status would be threatened by the implementation of Trump's executive order curtailing automatic birthright citizenship. He agreed the plaintiffs could provisionally proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president's policy nationally. https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-weigh-blocking-trump-birthright-100713880.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&segment_id=DY_VTO_CORE_DK&ncid=crm_19908-1475736-20250710-0--A&bt_ee=c2sDWa%2BOqVXvtcmNsw1yfMzfnO2%2F66Y1XnTSLwMvn8beaTXcgWO7pRfvvoLe%2BCr6&bt_ts=1752169932919
The judge paused his ruling for seven days to give the Trump administration time to appeal.
Here is Judge Laplante's order granting preliminary injunction and provisional class certification: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710.65.0.pdf
Cue cultists arguing that the judge is wrong because he's going against Dear Leader's wishes - or purporting to make other arguments for which this is the true rationale.
Washington Post Runs Trump-Bashing Piece from ‘Professional Clown’ After Bezos Vowed to Restore ‘Credibility’
The Washington Post published an editorial by a “professional clown” Thursday morning, presenting the author as an expert on the competence of the Trump administration — just months after the paper’s owner, billionaire oligarch Jeff Bezos, vowed to restore the publication’s “credibility.”
“I’m a clown. Donald Trump is not one of us,” the piece‘s headline says . . .
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2025/07/10/washington-post-runs-trump-bashing-piece-from-professional-clown-after-bezos-vowed-to-restore-credibility/
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
C. Jarrett Dieterle | 8.30.2025 7:00 AM
Eric Boehm | 8.29.2025 7:10 PM
Jack Nicastro | 8.29.2025 6:20 PM
Matt Welch | 8.29.2025 3:16 PM
Eric Boehm | 8.29.2025 1:30 PM
