Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

When will SCOTUS deliver any final reversal to any instance of lawless conduct by the Trump administration?

If the answer turns out to be, "never," ought that to invite future impeachment of justices complicit in giving Trump impunity?

[Krayt]

Sure. If impeachement really has a valid, purely political prong of getting rid of people one faction disagrees with!

Go for it and make your case. It had better be a good one though, asking elected officials to intervene in the actions of other elected officials, all sides running scared of the voters, which is how we got here in the first place.

I like (such and such) and I vote! Many such T-shirts for sale!

[Martinned]

The courts doing their job by making sure the other branches of government obey the constitution and the laws is politics now. How far the US has fallen.

[Krayt]

If it weren't The Boy Who Cried Wolf, combined with faceting about how the Emperor's misdeeds new clothes are such resplendant finery, all ramped up to 11, maybe proper illegal issues would carry more weight.

This is all blowback for 8 unrelenting years of many-pronged government attacks. I care about his wrongness qua wrongness. You do not. He's someone in the way with a loud mouth.

You are shocked, shocked the gloves are off now? Come on, man!

[hobie]

In four years we should be holding Nuremberg trials...in shalla.

[Martinned]

I don't think you'll be that lucky. It'll take a lot longer than four years, and will involve a lot more collapse than just four years of Trump.

I've mentioned it before. My plan for retirement is to write a book about the Dutch 18th century. Except for a few border skirmishes no foreign soldier set foot in the Netherlands proper between 1674 and 1788. During that time the only war the Netherlands lost was when it came out in support of the US secessionists, and got its ass kicked by the English in the 4th Anglo-Dutch War (1780–1784). And yet, during that century the Netherlands went from being a world leading commercial and naval power that could invade England at will (1688) and dictate peace terms in global conflicts (1713), to a third tier power that wasn't even worth attacking unless it attacked first instead of knowing its place.

Decline doesn't just come from losing wars. As the Dutch 18th century shows, it also comes from corruption and entrenched oligarchy. 17th century Netherlands was a mess (and at war most of the time), but it was a vibrant, liberal, entrepreneurial society. But after 1688 it slowly transformed into a place where a small group of rich families ran the country for their own profit, trying to hang on to what they already had instead of coming up with new, risky endeavours.

Sic transit gloria mundi...

[Krayt]

Decline doesn't just come from losing wars. As the Dutch 18th century shows, it also comes from corruption and entrenched oligarchy.

Thank you!

[Bob from Ohio]

"corruption and entrenched oligarchy"

True, look at England post 1688. Oh, wait, their corrupt and entrenched oligarchy built the world's greatest empire.

Holland's history doesn't scale.

"invade England at will (1688)"

Is that what they taught you in grammar school? The invasion succeeded because the corrupt and entrenched English oligarchy turned traitor and abandoned their king. William would have been driven into the sea otherwise.

[Kazinski]

Well for who, Trump? The Supreme Court Justices?

Or do you mean the actual guilty parties, the people who voted for Trump, and are happy he got waders this time so he didn't get bogged down in the swamp?

I'll pull a NG here, just what's the list of crimes to be prosecuted? The big one of course is winning an election, but other than that?

You already got Trump for 34 felonies, that it took 2 years to dream up a theory for, what more do you want?

[hobie]

"Well for who, Trump? The Supreme Court Justices?"

All of them. Sedition...every one of them. Emoluments for Trump. Insider trading for his circle. Fabricating evidence. We've yet to see the full extent of the Epstein cover up. Who knew what and when. Harlan Thomas and Alito will have to be subpoenaed as to how their voting record so faithfully mimics those of their donors. The fake electors scheme will be resurrected, and the Congressmen that were in on it (Ron Johnson, Jim Jordan etc) will need to be brought to justice.

Don't worry, Kaz. It will be fun!

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

lol you're a BlueAnon loon

[Jerry B.]

So, you want to impeach pretty much every politician?

Okay.

[hobie]

The ones that took part, yeah.

[Kazinski]

That's actually a great plan, but hardly original, that's what the Democrats did 2021-24, instead of figuring out what it would take to make the American want to retain them in power.

I heartily recommend continuing on that course, especially targeting men in their late 70's and 80's who are going to be replaced by the end of the current cycle anyway.

[Commenter_XY]

Your terms are muddled. Define them. What is a 'final reversal' and what is 'lawless conduct'? It seems your idea of lawless conduct doesn't agree with what SCOTUS considers lawless conduct.

BTW, I heard exactly the same thing from the other side while The Cauliflower and his old boss were in office.

Win elections is the correct response, lathrop.

[Martinned]

The whole point of constitutional constraints on presidential power is that they should exist regardless of who wins elections...

[Brett Bellmore]

Find a time machine and go tell FDR.

[Martinned]

Even if I agreed with that, how would that answer the charge that the US is (becoming) an authoritarian state? What kind of a lunatic looks at Trump and says: "Yeah, what the country needs is that guy but with fewer constraints on his power! Let's repeal some of the remaining constraints!"

[Michael P]

It answers that charge because the US is much less authoritarian now than it was under FDR. The current US is also much less authoritarian than, say, the UK or Germany is now.

These lawless district-court judges are a significant source of authoritarianism in the US today.

[Martinned]

You are beyond help

[Dr. Ed 2]

Watch for Nuremberg trials in 6 months -- of the Obama/Biden folk.

[Sarcastr0]

Most libertarians love the 1930s. But Michael isn’t an idealist or utopian, he’s a tribalist.
Thus, authoritarian means doing things Michael is told not to like.

[David Nieporent]

Even if the judges were wrong, telling the government that it can't do things is literally the opposite of authoritarian.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Telling the government it has to fund a particular organization is not the opposite of authoritarian.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Telling the Executive that it must spend money as appropriated by Congress and that it cannot dissolve agencies and departments established by Congressional statute is not authoritarian.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Perhaps, but it's not the opposite of authoritarian either.

In any event, I was referring to the circumstances where courts were telling the executive that it had to spend money not appropriated by Congress.

[Michael P]

Many of these lawless orders have been (until they are struck down on appeal) to keep various Deep State, big-government mandarins in positions of official power, or to keep funneling public money to leftist organizations. That not only is direct authoritarianism, it enables further authoritarianism.

[Frank Drackman]

To: Stephen Latherup
From: Frank Drackman M.D.
Subj: a Life

Get one

[Mr. Bumble]

Too late. Better to be planning final arrangements.

[Armchair]

If the SCOTUS does not, was the conduct actually "lawless?"

[shawn_dude]

No way to know if the decision was posted on the shadow docket.

[Riva]

This circular stupidity pretending to be a question is making me dizzy little Steve. A little too early in the morning for this.

[Kazinski]

Adler just put a post up about the DC court of appeals issuing a madamus order telling Boasberg to end his contempt effort against the Administration.

"The district court's order is a "clear abuse of discretion" that warrants the "drastic and extraordinary remedy" of mandamus."

"When an injunction has been vacated, as occurred here, a district court loses the authority to coerce compliance with the order. ... Punishment through criminal contempt might still be available in these circumstances, but the district court cannot use the threat of such punishment as a backdoor to obtain compliance with a vacated and therefore unenforceable TRO."

Lathrop is going to put Rao on his impeachment list too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does a Presidential Pardon preclude an indictment?

I would argue that it does not -- nor would it actually preclude a trial and conviction, it would only nullify such conviction. Otherwise Article II would have to explicitly say that the POTUS can preclude indictment, and that wasn't even a power that the English king had.

[Krayt]

What's with the strange bedfellows on this issue the past month?

If things weren't so politicised, would we be having discussions on opposing factions having the honor of charging, prosecuting, and hampering anyway?

[hobie]

I guess MAGA is lubing up the crony pardon machine again. Probably Epstein related. "Sexing those tween masseuses was part of my official duties."

[Frank Drackman]

no "Rube"??
and speaking of Lube, you and Sergeant Major Pepper Waltz should hook up, you could talk about stealing Valor together.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, riddle me this. Why would a public prosecutor present to a grand jury a proposed indictment that, in the event a conviction ensued, would be null and void?

[LexAquilia]

To dirty up a political opponent. See Trump 2021-2024.

[Frank Drackman]

Really "Not Guilty", you're riffing on the Riddler?
You strike me more as a "Chandell" (Google it*)
But you ask "Why" I'll tell you
To make Barry Hussein, Comey, Brennan, and (the) Clap(per) spend some of their hard (sarc) earned Shekels like they made "45/47 48?" do. (Yes Queenie, I remembered the Period, now when will you be off yours?)

Frank
* Some time prior to encountering Batman, Chandell was a renowned pianist. During a performance at the White House, he found himself forced to use a player piano to cover the fact that he had injured his hands. His thuggish twin brother Harry used this fact to blackmail Chandell into a life of crime, using the alias of "Fingers."

Harry used Chandell in a plot to murder Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson so that he could marry Aunt Harriet and claim Bruce Wayne's fortune. When Chandell planned to go straight upon planning to use the fortune to pay Harry back, Doe, Rae, and Mimi ended up using knock-out gas on him. When Harry's lawyer, Alfred Slye, wanted his payment for getting Harry out of Gotham City Police Station, Harry also had him exposed to the knock-out gas. Batman and Robin managed to defeat Harry and free both Chandell and his lawyer from a deathtrap.

Chandell was last seen playing his music for the guards while Harry was making plans to escape from prison.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fair question NG -- why Impeach a President who is no longer in office? Why spend the money to prove (via DNA) that someone who has already died -- in prison -- committed some murder back in the '70s? Why chase down frail elderly who might have done something for the Nazis some 80 years ago? Or something in the Klan 60 years ago?

It's giving voice to the victims.

[NvEric]

+1

[SRG2]

why Impeach a President who is no longer in office?

Because an ex-president convicted in the Senate is no longer able to run for president, duh.

[Moderation4ever]

I have long argued on this site that pardon granted by Presidents and Governors should only come after a case is adjudicated. Pardons anytime earlier prevents the public from actually knowing what the criminal behavior was and what evidence was available to support a conviction.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that's a reasonable position which is only spoiled by the fact that contrary practice extends so far back. But that does kind of spoil it.

[Bored Lawyer]

There would be no Article III case or controversy. Although perhaps a grand jury could still indict.

[Area Man]

Bingo. We don't usually think about standing in criminal cases, but the government would still have to have it. After a pardon, it wouldn't.

[John F. Carr]

The judge ought to sanction the prosecutor unless there is a good faith dispute about whether the defendant had been pardoned.

There was a guy who claimed he had been pardoned by Trump. In fact Trump had only announced an intention to pardon him. His prosecution was allowed.

Going after Hunter Biden or a January 6 rioter, that should be sanctionable.

[David Nieporent]

Does a Presidential Pardon preclude an indictment?

I would argue that it does not

If only there were a simple way to learn things that did not involve talking first and thinking never. The fucking text of the constitution expressly says: "and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment".
​
​
(TBC, in other words, it's not that Dr. Ed is wrong on this point; it's that he is just randomly guessing.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Womp womp.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What are the implications of Bondi offering a $50K reward for the arrest of a sovereign head of government, eg the twit in Venezuela?
https://nypost.com/2025/08/07/us-news/trump-admin-announces-50m-reward-for-capture-of-venezuelas-nicolas-maduro/

Is it an act of war?

And Trump bashers beware -- Coma Joe was offering $25K for the same thing.

[Kazinski]

They basically did the same thing with Noriega in the Bush Administration, then went in and got him.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be $50 million and there has been a reward on him since Trump 45 ($15 million increased to $25 million by Biden).

[Martinned]

No, it is not an act of war. Dropping bombs on another country is an act of war.

[Commenter_XY]

So is state sponsored terror = act of war

It isn't over for Iran. More is coming. Next time, the drug addlepated Khamenei won't be off limits.

[Martinned]

So is state sponsored terror = act of war

This is a legal blog, so let's try something crazy: What's your authority for that proposition?

I'll give you a clue. According to article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the sources of international law are:

a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

Please, offer me something that fits in one of those four categories that supports your claim.

[Riva]

That’s funny when international law is not actually “law” at all, just optional obligations. And the US generally opts out. So who cares? Lazy overpaid and largely unnecessary bureaucrats I suppose. Make that completely unnecessary.

[Bwaaah]

So-called international law is the realm of idealists who are not only devoted to a notion of The One Right Way, but to subordination of all others to their designs. To use a car metaphor, it's like a decked out Hummer with nicely trimmed buckles, and Martinned (and many like him) running behind it yelling, "I call shotgun!"

[Martinned]

"Act of War" is an international legal concept. XY's comment makes no sense except as a statement about international law.

[Bob from Ohio]

A state hiring people to launch a terrorist attack against another state is certainly committing an act of war.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
So is state sponsored terror = act of war
This is a legal blog, so let's try something crazy: What's your authority for that proposition?"

Martin - that is a stupid response - even by your standards

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is a legal blog, so let's try something crazy: What's your authority for that proposition?"

1. What's your authority for your claim that arresting a head of state isn't an act of war?

2. Googling around, it seems like there's significant discussion and disagreement over the extent to which state-sponsored terrorism is an act of war.

[not guilty]

Does asking MAGAts to identify relevant facts or furnish applicable legal authorities make y'all break out in hives?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Of course not. Here is the google search I used that gave me the impression that the matter was the subject of debate.

But Martined both made a specific claim about international law, and demanded that others support their claims. I'm curious to see what his authority is for his claim that arresting a head of state is not an act of war.

[not guilty]

Let's see now. A google search is legal authority in which jurisdictions?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Did I make a legal claim that should be backed with legal authority?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Even if illegals have to be counted and used to determine how many Congresscritters a state got, wouldn't Baker v. Carr require that the state apportion districts so that there were an equal number of ELIGIBLE VOTERS in each? Otherwise, how could there be "one man, one vote"?

[Krayt]

2 senators per state, large or small, giving slight advantage in power to smaller states is massive violation of one man one vote theory.

Massive immigration granting many more house members to giant blue states is sweet love indeed!

Have to check which side and which power grab before touting memes.

[Michael P]

The Senate was never expected to allocate equal representation to each voter. States are also sovereign entities. Other than that, great comment!

[Martinned]

States are also sovereign entities.

No they're not, they're parts of the United States, which is a sovereign entity. The fact that, domestically within the US legal order, the states have a lot of powers that cannot easily be removed doesn't change that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, that you have utter incomprehension of the way the US is on display almost every day here.

Yes, states are sovereign entities, which delegate to the federal government a LIMITED portion of that sovereignty. That is the fundamental basis of the United states' constitutional structure. Hell, some of the states PREDATE the federal government!

The US is a federation, not a nation. Period, end of story. It's a federation where the federal government has grown cancerously and usurped a lot of power it wasn't delegated, but it is still a federation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yes, states are sovereign entities, which delegate to the federal government a LIMITED portion of that sovereignty. That is the fundamental basis of the United states' constitutional structure.

Nope. Not true for even a moment during U.S. history—although closer to true under the Articles of Confederation than at any time afterward.

The jointly sovereign People are America's sovereign. In U.S. constitutionalism, no government is sovereign.

[Krayt]

This is made up out of whole cloth, but as you regularly talk about how the infinite sovereignity of The People justifies constitutional power grabs, uhhh, as long as they do what you want, it is not surprising.

Ultimately The People have the sovereignity in forming the several states, which are not creatures of the federal government, as well as the federal government, created by them as well and also by way of their creations, the several states.

And the form The People decided of the federal government was limited to only powers granted to it, and, explicitely, none others. This has been stretched out of all recognition, but that's the result of centuries of motivated weaselation with very little due to amendment, as fractions of change go.

[bernard11]

Ultimately The People have the sovereignity in forming the several states, which are not creatures of the federal government,

Most of them are, in fact, creatures of the federal government. Few have any history as independent entities.

[Martinned]

Sovereignty means, simply put, that there is no higher power above you. In the US, the highest power sits with the Federal Government through the Federal Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Whenever the Federal Constitution is amended the Federal government might get more power, for example when the 16th and the 18th amendments were ratified. When that happens, the power of the states is reduced by the same amount automatically.

The fact the states have a role in the amendment process doesn't change that, because a state loses (or gains, as with the 21st amendment) powers regardless of whether it ratified the amendment or not.

The states are creatures of US law, they are not sovereign.

[Michael P]

In the US, the highest power sits with the Federal Government through the Federal Constitution.

Tell that to the anti-commandeering doctrine.

[Martinned]

That is a constraint that the US constitution puts on the US federal government. It can be amended out of the US constitution at any time by action under the US constitution (specifically: Article V).

[Brett Bellmore]

You're missing that the states ARE the highest power in the areas where they retain sovereignty, while the federal government is the highest power in the areas where IT is granted sovereignty.

You're trying to impose a unified sovereignty analysis on a system that deliberately broke up sovereignty into multiple interlocking sovereigns. The US is a federation of nations, and you're treating it as a unitary nation.

And until the federal government started seriously usurping power with FDR, the states retained the bulk of that sovereignty, too.

[Martinned]

You're missing that the states ARE the highest power in the areas where they retain sovereignty, while the federal government is the highest power in the areas where IT is granted sovereignty.

No, you're missing that I'm focusing on the Kompetenz Kompetenz. Who decides where the states retain sovereignty or not? The answer is: the drafters of the Federal constitution and its amendments. Any individual state can have powers taken away against its will. That's not sovereignty.

[Krayt]

Federal weasels on the other side are working to crush state sovereignity of the form of sanctuary cities. Yet you don't look glowingly on this?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Moreover, States are de facto not allowed to ever leave the United States, which suggests that they are no longer very "sovereign".

De jure, the Constitution, agreed by every State, may be amended in any way the States so choose. From the 13th or so Amendment onwards, the United States has legally ceased to be much of a "federation", as various trappings of state sovereignty have been removed and handed to the federal government.

We can argue about whether that has turned out well, but not whether it has happened.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sovereignty means, simply put, that there is no higher power above you. In the US, the highest power sits with the Federal Government through the Federal Constitution.

Martinned, first sentence correct, second sentence mistaken. My citation for that is to the guy who put, "We the People," in the U.S. Constitution. His name was James Wilson, and he explained it thus:

There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable . . . Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions . . . This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. The consequence is, the people may change constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.

By the way, the, "positive institution," referred to by Wilson is the U.S. Constitution.

Another way to understand what Wilson explained is that the Constitution is a decree to empower and constrain government. Meaning that what it prescribes applies to government(s), but not to the People themselves, when they act jointly in their sovereign capacity.

Thus, the amendment procedures the Constitution sets forth constrain only government's participation in the amendment process. As Wilson. says in so many words, the jointly sovereign People themselves remain free at all times to change the Constitution by any means they can manage.

An answer to the question how that might work out in practice remains obscure. But the concept it announces nevertheless remains crucially salient, because it means no government official, including the President, can properly be cloaked with impunity by anyone else in government—for instance, by a Supreme Court decision.

And if, as in the present case, attempts have been made to tailor laws or court decisions to the contrary, then those participating in those attempts—no matter who they are, or what offices they may hold—can properly be punished by the People in any way which suits the People, without regard to Constitutional constraints to the contrary of the means chosen, or of the punishments inflicted.

Thus, the U.S. Constitution does not constrain the jointly sovereign People themselves. For the present—with the American polity too closely divided to enable politically practical sovereign initiative—that may incorrectly be interpreted to mean a sovereign rejoinder is certainly unavailing.

But unless President Trump and his MAGA supporters succeed in actual overthrow of U.S. sovereignty, and also succeed in replacing the former sovereigns with themselves, the future must admit possibility of unpredictable retribution by the People, should political happenstance better enable them. That possibility alone, accompanied by proposals for moderate responses by the People, ought to be considered as a present means of influence, and directed not just at Trump, but at all who have supported and enabled his misdeeds.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, states are sovereign entities, which delegate to the federal government a LIMITED portion of that sovereignty. That is the fundamental basis of the United states' constitutional structure.

No. It was the fundamental basis of the U.S. constitutional structure before the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were arguably as you describe. The Constitution fundamentally abrogated that idea. Remember, the Constitution by designed even bypassed the states to be ratified by the people.

Hell, some of the states PREDATE the federal government!

A few. And most do not. Most were formed by the federal government.

The US is a federation, not a nation. Period, end of story. It's a federation where the federal government has grown cancerously and usurped a lot of power it wasn't delegated, but it is still a federation.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be.

[Armchair]

" Remember, the Constitution by designed even bypassed the states to be ratified by the people."

No.

"Article VII
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

"Most (States) were formed by the federal government."

No. A critical misconception. The states are formed by the people within the state. Not by the federal government. The enabling act of 1802 for Ohio is a good example of this. It authorized the is act authorized the residents of the eastern portion of the Northwest Territory to form the state of Ohio and join the U.S. on an equal footing with the other states. The residents chose to form a state. Or could choose not to. But the federal government did "not" form the state. The people of the state did.

[David Nieporent]

No.

"Article VII
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Yes. The conventions of the states. The constitutional ratifying process bypassed the state governments.

The enabling act of 1802 for Ohio is a good example of this.

Who do you think passed this enabling act? What do you think the inhabitants could have done if the federal government (a) hadn't passed it; or (b) said "no" when the residents decided they wanted to? It was solely in the discretion of Congress whether to admit Ohio as a state, and what territory that state would have.

[Armchair]

A) Of the STATES. Not of the "people." The STATES ratified the Constitution.

B) The PEOPLE decide whether they want to be a state or not. The federal government cannot dictate that they become a state. Again, a CRITICAL misunderstanding of the democratic process, and what it really means. The people decide whether they want to be a state. Not the federal government.

Once the state is formed, THEN the STATE decides on terms with the US Federal government to join the union. But the federal government cannot dictate when a state is formed.

[Magister]

It is true that joining the United States is more carrot than stick (and why would we want an unwilling state, whether the people or the state government?), but what would it mean to form a state and not join the United States? And what is the huge distinction between the people and the state government, if the "state" guarantees a republican form of government? Maybe Greenland will present an example, if it joins despite its people's preference not to join the US.

[David Nieporent]

A) Of the STATES. Not of the "people." The STATES ratified the Constitution.

They did not. Again, they were bypassed. Let me try an analogy: let's suppose that before the UN was formed, the people planning it announced that national popular referenda would decide whether the organization would form and countries would be members. A majority of Americans said yes, and the U.N. declared, without asking Congress or POTUS, "The U.S. is now a member." In that scenario, the people of the U.S. spoke, but the U.S. did not.

The PEOPLE decide whether they want to be a state or not. The federal government cannot dictate that they become a state.

100% wrong. You're inventing things not in the Constitution. (Of course, it's exceedingly unlikely that Congress would want to do that against the will of the inhabitants, but nothing in the constitution gives the latter any say. Congress can tomorrow declare that Greenland, Canada, or Puerto Rico is the 51st state. That might violate international law, but not domestic.

[Armchair]

Point 1. The states did ratify the Constitution.

But let's really settle this. On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island General Assembly...the elected legislature of the State of Rhode Island...ratified the US Constitution, by a vote of by a vote of 34 to 32.

That's not an analogy. That is FACT. Under your claim, such a ratification by the elected government of Rhode Island was illegal. Which is nonsense. Again, historical fact.

[Armchair]

"You're inventing things not in the Constitution. "

I'm not. There is no power granted to the federal government for it to be able to create new states. It's not there. Point it out if you believe it is. But it's simply not in the Constitution.

And by the 9th and 10th amendments that means the People (or States) have the right. Not the federal government .

[David Nieporent]

That's not an analogy. That is FACT. Under your claim, such a ratification by the elected government of Rhode Island was illegal. Which is nonsense. Again, historical fact.

Illegal??? Not at all. The RI could ratify the constitution, they could declare August to be Official Broccoli Month. Either one had the same effect on the constitution coming into existence.

I'm not. There is no power granted to the federal government for it to be able to create new states. It's not there. Point it out if you believe it is. But it's simply not in the Constitution.

TF? Article IV, Section 3: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

[Michael P]

The Tenth Amendment disagrees with you, as does the process for amending the US Constitution.

[Martinned]

Nothing in the 10th amendment says that the states are sovereign. Apart from the actual text of that provision, you can tell by the fact that the 10th amendment is a provision of *the federal constitution*.

[Michael P]

It reserves powers to the states, which means they are powers the states originally had (and keep).

[Martinned]

What does that have to do with anything? That's just an historical observation.

[Sarcastr0]

The term sovereign is doing a ton of mischief here.

Everyone is assuming a meaning but I don’t think they agree with one another.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

By "everyone" I think you mainly mean Lathrop...

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, that is his thing.

But there are plenty of others angrily talking past one another here too.

[Keldonric]

I’m glad you all are talking about this — I think Sarcastr0’s right that “sovereign” is doing a lot of heavy lifting without a shared definition.

The Constitution never actually uses the word sovereignty. It talks about powers — granted, reserved, or prohibited — and frames them as delegated by We the People. The Tenth Amendment reinforces that structure, but still in terms of powers, not sovereignty.

That’s why I pause when I read cases using “inherent sovereignty” to justify powers the Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government. Under the Constitution, the federal government is an agent of the states and the people for specific purposes. Treating non-delegated powers as “inherent” flips that relationship — it’s like a category error, mistaking the agent for the principal.

I’m just trying to trace the thread here, and I look forward to any thoughts or leads I could follow.

P.S. Thank goodness for threaded comments

[David Nieporent]

Under the Constitution, the federal government is an agent of the states

No.

[Keldonric]

I see, ok.

When I call the federal government an agent, I’m using the older sense of the word — Samuel Johnson (1755) defined it as “one employed to act for another,” and Webster (1828) as “a substitute, deputy, or factor; one entrusted with the business of another.”

In Federalist 39, Madison describes the federal government as deriving its powers from “the assent of the people” and being “limited to certain enumerated objects,” while the states retain “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” The 10th Amendment states this principle outright: powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or the people. That sounds to me exactly like an agent — its business isn’t its own, it acts on behalf of and under the authority of another.

If the only powers it has are those delegated, then it has no independent business of its own. The people (and the states) may grant the authority to exercise a power, but they still own that power. That ownership means the power can be altered or taken back — even if day-to-day authority has been entrusted to the federal government.

Doesn’t that mean that, by definition, the federal government can’t be sovereign in its own right?

[Keldonric]

Thought experiment: If every delegated power were removed from the federal government’s jurisdiction, what powers would it still have the authority to exercise?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Over at the Balkinization blog they just had a symposium on Richard Primus' new book, wherein he argues that the notion that the branches of the federal government are limited to specific enumerated powers is in error. Here is a link:

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2025/07/balkinization-symposium-on-richard_01490213235.html

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty weak argument, actually. Unavoidably so, there actually being an amendment in the bill of Rights to rule it out.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

As Primus points out, the terms "enumerated" and "delegated" are not synonymous. You should probably read the book before disparaging it. I'm not completely convinced by his arguments, but it is a fascinating topic.

[David Nieporent]

When I call the federal government an agent, I’m using the older sense of the word — Samuel Johnson (1755) defined it as “one employed to act for another,” and Webster (1828) as “a substitute, deputy, or factor; one entrusted with the business of another.”

It's reasonable to describe the federal government as an agent. But not of the states. It is an agent of the people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"States are also sovereign entities."

16 hours after this comment, no one has brought up the dual sovereignty doctrine, a fairly prominent element of US law.

Yes, states are widely recognized as being sovereign entities, and least for some purposes.

[Kazinski]

Nor only was the Senate designed to not be proportional, its the only thing in the constitution that can't be changed by an amendment.

[Mr. Bumble]

In theory the states have all of the power not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution.

[Martinned]

No. The states have all the power not specifically given to the federal government or denied to them by the (federal) Constitution.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/

[NvEric]

There's a confusion between 'power' and 'authority' and 'inherent right' verses 'consent'. Without 'consent' the rest is meaningless.

Consent is the means for the authority to be used for the system's purported coherence. Consent must be granted by the individual sovereign entity, be it a person or other - something requiring a framework beforehand, which is impossible. Continuing on through the centuries has been a non-sequitur imposition - the consent for others to exercise authority has not been renewed. It can never follow on its own without each new generation giving their consent.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No. In American constitutionalism, the body of all possible political powers remains mostly inchoate, neither delegated nor exercised. And thus not presently within the power of either the Federal government, or of state governments, or of individuals who might claim them as rights.

What the 9A and 10A ought to be interpreted to mean is simply that they announce the jointly sovereign American People, where they have not expressly delegated powers, or protected rights, have not thereby precluded their own power to do so in the future.

[tylertusta]

Theoretically possible to change the Senate, but it would require unanimous consent from every state. Practically it's impossible.

[Brett Bellmore]

You could first amend Article V by an ordinary amendment, to remove the restriction. And then only violate the restriction with the next amendment after the first had been ratified.

[tylertusta]

Sure, I can see how people would see that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't bet on the courts trying to oppose it, if a convention originated that amendment, and the required supermajority of states ratified. Because the next thing that happens after the judiciary rules against that amendment is pretty ugly for the judiciary, there being nothing in Article V protecting THEM.

[bernard11]

Much as I'd like to change the Senate I don't think that flies, nor should it.

After all, if you can just amend away the restriction then what's the point of having it? None.

I mean, the only reason to get rid of the restriction is to change the Senate, and if you have the votes to do that you have the votes to follow up by changing the Senate.

[A Japanese Student]

I think it's possible to amend it in a way that does not deprive states of equal suffrage.

One proposal is to allow people to vote for out-of-state candidates. Or, you could establish a single nationwide district that elects 10 more senators. Because none of those 10 seats are assigned to a particular state, there is no violation of equal suffrage.

Even if that was ruled unconstitutional, there are still many constitutional ways to make a nationwide district. You could, for example, make it proportional representation, and select one candidate from each state in a way that reflects the nationwide percentage.

Say GOP got 50%, Dems got 48%, and Libertarians got 2%. Because NH is the state with the highest percentage of Libertarians, the senator from NH is Libertarian, even though they didn't get majority. Then, the 49 states are sorted by Dem approval, and the top 24 elects a Democrat. The remaining 25 are for the GOP.

[ducksalad]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof

To me it this seems crystal clear: the senators from NH must be elected by the people of NH and no one else. How else would you interpret "thereof".

[A Japanese Student]

Of course, all of the proposals would require a constitutional amendment. But they shouldn't run afoul of Article V.

[bernard11]

I don't see a problem with an amendment adding 10 "national" Senators, to be elected by RCV. Seems like a decent idea to me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If more populous states had more if a say in electing the national Senators, that would deprive the smaller state of equal suffrage in the Senate, no?

[Frank Drackman]

and if you didn't have a Pubic Screw-el Ed-jew-ma-cation you'd know that Senators were originally erected by the State Legislatures, so the "one man one vote" BS doesn't apply.

[Joe_dallas]

the US is republic, not a democracy.
One of the reasons for 2 senators per state instead of the one man one vote theory you stated is to prevent the majority from trampling the rights of the minority

[bernard11]

So you prefer having the minority trample the rights of the majority?

And "the US is republic, not a democracy," is a meaningless argument.

[Joe_dallas]

bernard11 23 minutes ago
"So you prefer having the minority trample the rights of the majority?"

Bernie - Nobody is making that argument.

bernard11 25 minutes ago
"And "the US is republic, not a democracy," is a meaningless argument."

Bernie - A meaningless argument - only if you ignore the constitutional structure of the US

[Nelson]

We elect our representatives by democratic voting. It is a democracy. The fact that we use a republican system of representation just means that it is both a democracy and a republic. They aren’t mutually exclusive, as republicans (small-r) like to insinuate.

It is 100% accurate to say we are a democracy. It is 100% accurate to say we are a republic.

It is 100% inaccurate to say we are a republic, not a democracy. It’s equally inaccurate to say we are a democracy, not a republic.

So yes, it’s a meaningless argument. But one that conservatives seem to relish having.

[Keldonric]

Yep. This is the way.

We’re both a democracy and a republic. One describes how leaders are chosen, the other describes how power is structured and limited. You can have an authoritarian republic, or even a democratic dictatorship. There are examples. The United States is a democratic republic.

[ducksalad]

I prefer having the minority "trample" the majority's power to trample minorities. That is kind of the whole point of huge swathes of the constitution and is something right out of GOVT 101 class.

And "republic not a democracy" is simply shorthand for the fact that there are intentionally anti-democratic elements in the structure of the government. Those elements are not some kind of interpretation error or a typo.

You do realize Bill of Rights is a list of 10 things the voters and their representatives aren't allowed to vote for. 10 assaults on democracy, perhaps that bothers you. I think it's glorious.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't tell Joe, but none of that makes the United States not a "democracy".

[ducksalad]

In this one very limited case, I'm with Joe. Of course it would be more accurate to say "not an absolute democracy".

But it's a reasonable shorthand since he was responding to someone making an absolutist democratic argument: Bernard's hinting that the US Senate is illegitimate.

[bernard11]

And "republic not a democracy" is simply shorthand for the fact that there are intentionally anti-democratic elements in the structure of the government. Those elements are not some kind of interpretation error or a typo.

That doesn't sound right to me. Imagine a country that legislates by a direct vote of all citizens. Bills are proposed some way, maybe by petition, and then the citizenry votes for or against. Surely that would be a democracy even by your standards.

But such a country would still have a Constitution specifying the various procedures involved, how the laws are to be enforced, etc. Now suppose that Constitution also had a provision something like the First Amendment, listing certain kinds of laws that were not allowed. Would that make it not a democracy?

My notion of a republic is simply a democracy where the people elect representatives to vote for them, as much for practical reasons as anything else. The "republic not a democracy" argument is particularly silly when used to defend the EC, or the malapportionment of the Senate.

There is nothing about being a republic that requires giving some groups more political powers than others.

[Keldonric]

There are myriad ways in which how representatives are chosen and how authority to exercise powers are blended. Ancient Athens, for example, was a democracy without being a republic — most laws were passed by direct vote of citizens, yet there was no fixed constitutional structure limiting what they could decide. Conversely, the Roman Republic was a republic without being a democracy in the modern sense — it had a constitution and elected offices, but only certain classes of citizens could hold power.

And, as a twist on the theme, you could even have a gerontocratic republic — a republic whose offices and votes are restricted to the elderly. Iain M. Banks even imagined one in Consider Phlebas, where political authority rested entirely with the oldest citizens. That’s representative government, but not a democracy in any meaningful sense.

Check out the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks if you like big-idea space opera.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So you prefer having the minority trample the rights of the majority?"

If the US wants to make a treaty with Canada, 41 million Canadians get the same say as 340 million Americans. Is that the minority trampling the rights of the majority?

[bernard11]

slight advantage in power to smaller states

"Slight" advantage? Get serious.

[Nelson]

A slight advantage. Like the knight in The Holy Grail just had a flesh wound.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"2 senators per state, large or small, giving slight advantage in power to smaller states is massive violation of one man one vote theory."

Article I authorizes this exception to the 15th Amendment.

[OpinionsVary]

There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea that districts should be sized based on eligible (or even registered) voters. It has some nice second order effects - like discouraging disenfranchisement and vote purgers. After all, if you purge your voter lists, you're also purging your appointment base. There's a reason that it was slave states who wanted slaves counted as full people for appointment purposes. It amplified the voting power of the the voting minority.

However - outside a new constitutional amendment - that's rather all political theorising because the US constitution is pretty clear this works per person for allocation, not per voter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, no, it's not pretty clear, it's a late invention of the judiciary. I was just starting elementary school when Reynolds v. Sims was decided, overturning the structure of numerous states that had, for most of the country's history, had internal structures that were the same as the federal government's: A house representing population, and a senate representing political subdivisions.

Pretty clear constitutional provisions don't take 176 years for people to notice what they mean.

[Sarcastr0]

Your originalism remains as shallow an excuse for you to lock in your personal hot takes. And as is often the case they're pretty into institutionalizing inequities, so long as you are on top.

Reynolds v. Sims was a new set of facts not previously encountered by the Court since the South was getting real innovative to disenfranchise black people.

Baker v. Carr 2 years earlier was the real change. The line of cases was based on EPC so 176 is the wrong number to use.

Not that you've done any work on the history. I'd wager you haven't read either case.

[Bwaaah]

Il Douche, all lathered up and popping a morning woodie over a Brett remark.

He has transcended TDS through a climb-down to BDS, and now takes position as a thoroughly marginalized reactionary. As in so-called "Critical Theory," his new brand of originalism steadfastly views all of history through the "lens" of Brett Is Wrong.

No limits. Small box.

[ducksalad]

It sounds to me like you're conflating three different things: how states internally elect their legislatures, how the federal government apportions House seats to states, and how we count population.

The 3/5 compromise was absolutely counting people who were not eligible voters, and it dates from the 1780s. So I don't think you can claim the very idea of counting non-voters is an invention of late 20th century liberals.

I agree with you that Reynolds v Sims was wrongly decided, and IIRC we got within one vote of having a constitutional convention over the issue. Now it's too late because state senates elected under the new rules have an interest in keeping the new rules.

(Lesson: when the SC or Congress overreaches in interfering with states, the call for a convention has to happen *quickly*)

[bernard11]

So, are states "political subdivisions" of the federal government? I think they mostly are, while you, with your talk of federations, clearly don't.

But we can agree that states are not federations of counties which have some degree of sovereignty. So there is no reason they should be represented as counties, or legislative districts, rather than simply sets of voters, who should have equal representations.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But we can agree that states are not federations of counties which have some degree of sovereignty."

Home rule states would like to have a word with you.

[not guilty]

Whether to adopt home rule or not is a decision made at the state level -- by statute, by state constitution or otherwise. Counties and municipalities are creations of state law and are not "sovereignties."

[bernard11]

Pretty clear constitutional provisions don't take 176 years for people to notice what they mean.

What about 157 years?

That's how long it's been since the 14th Amendment was ratified, and yet suddenly people are claiming that the very explicit provision for birthright citizenship has been misunderstood since 1868.

[Riva]

Democrats didn’t care about that when it came to their original slaves and don’t much care now with respect to the replacements they help traffic in.

[A Japanese Student]

Interesting argument. You might be surprised that Texas actually argued against forcing that policy in court. And you might be doubly surprised that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument. Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016)

[not guilty]

No, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), stands only for the proposition that a state legislature's reapportionment decisions may give rise to an equal protection issue justiciable in federal courts.

In Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), SCOTUS opined:

We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, § 2 that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. It would be extraordinary to suggest that, in such statewide elections, the votes of inhabitants of some parts of a State, for example, Georgia's thinly populated Ninth District, could be weighted at two or three times the value of the votes of people living in more populous parts of the State, for example, the Fifth District around Atlanta. Cf. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368. We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, § 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the basis of the Hose of Representatives.

376 U.S. at 7-9. Note the use of the word "inhabitants" rather than the word "citizens" in this nut graf.

And as David has observed, the "one person, one vote" standard does not come from Baker v. Carr. It originated in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963), and was reiterated in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964).

[Kazinski]

James Carville has proposed proposed a plan for the Democrats to destroy democracy in order to save it:

“They are just going to have to unilaterally add Puerto Rico and [the] District of Columbia [as] states … They’re just going to have to do it,” Carville said. “And they may have to expand the [Supreme Court] to 13 members.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-carville-floats-radical-plan-for-democrats-to-save-democracy/

I suppose what the Republicans should do while they have control of both houses, if they think the Democrats are serious, is devolve the residential areas of DC back to Maryland, or if Maryland won't cooperate then West Virginia or even Florida. Then unilaterally declare Puerto Rico Independent.

They can just ignore the Supreme Court if they pack that.

But what the odds Democrats are ever regain control of Presidency, House, and Senate if they can't be trusted?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — However great your distrust of the Ds may be, I suspect Carville's distrust of MAGA is greater, and better founded.

Also, how do you figure extending democracy to DC and Puerto Rico is equivalent to ending democracy? That one remains mysterious to me. Do you suppose the U.S. remains small-d democratic only so long as MAGA controls Congress and the White House?

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Kazinski — However great your distrust of the Ds may be, I suspect Carville's distrust of MAGA is greater, and better founded.

Distrust of D's - you mean how the D's hid coma joe's incapacity

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Just curious, do you agree that Trump is "mentally incapacitated" now?

Or are you "hiding" it...

[Joe_dallas]

Spam

The answer is no.

I deal with reality, not the delusions and hatred you display.

[Krayt]

Well, at least he admits they don't give a rats ass about noble things like statehood for any reason other than power. Which is the same reason the Republicans are ag'in it.

Wow. An honest power broker! No wonder Mary found fascination in him.

[hobie]

America has added states all the time. I believe we're currently trying to add Canada and Greenland

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

But not Puerto Rico. 😉

[hobie]

Not Puerto Rico apparently. So what makes them so special?

[Commenter_XY]

They chose (meaning vote) their status, multiple times = PR

[hobie]

Wouldn't you agree that adding Canada would be great? Based on population, we should end up reapportioning almost half the congressional districts to them.

[Commenter_XY]

I think Canada needs to make choices for Canada, and America needs to make choices for America. That is what I think, hobie, since you asked.

PR voted for their legal status, multiple times; that makes it special.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Most people would have noticed the slight flaws in their plan before making a huge deal out of it.

Making Canada part of the United States would effectively terminate the Republican Party forever.

And promising to release the Epstein files, knowing exactly what was in them from your time in power during 2017-20, could be considered a bit of an own goal.

(Most rational people, I mean.)

[Sarcastr0]

Dems can’t be trusted is a pretty odd way to view recent electoral policy threats.

[Commenter_XY]

The party that promulgated 'no jab, no job', advocated taking children from their parents for want of a covid-19 shot, advocated the closure of Churches, Synagogues, while simultaneously expanding access to liquor stores and dispensaries, defined work and workers as essential or non-essential using an arbitrary standard, attempted to imprison the leading candidate for president of the opposing political party during the presidential election, used the intelligence community to subvert a presidency, and to this day cannot figure out what a woman is.....are all good reasons not to trust Team D, presently.

All of what I listed above had legal issues that have been extensively discussed here (and litigated) in just the last 5 years.

Sometimes Sarcastr0, there are situations where 'The Law' does not, and cannot, provide an answer. That is why we have elections.

The only place I see calling off national elections is over in europe.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck has happened to your brain?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, there's nothing of substance you can possibly say in response to that sort of mic drop, so you throw a personal attack over your shoulder as you skulk away. Really classy.

[Sarcastr0]

He did a non responsive but really mad Covid rant. Nothing relevant to the current TX/CA/census fracas.

Your MAGA contrarian shitposting addiction makes you support some terrible and unhinged people.

[Life of Brian]

We just went through this tired routine yesterday, O self-proclaimed Thread Policeperson. Today, the topic clearly expressed in the thread that you're suddenly trying to declare off bounds is "Dems can't be trusted." And your choice to double down on your distractive mudslinging just reinforces that every single word C_XY said on that score was irrefutably correct.

[Krayt]

You could ignore out of hand his Covid rant as the snake oil BS it is. I do. The emergency imperial behaviors over it, not so much.

The one single thing I liked from his first term was refusing the Covid rationale to become national dictator. Feds recommend, but let the states do the dirty work.

But there's a ton more valid points he makes. You literally tried mightily to remove him from office, jail him, get him declared invalid as a candidate lest The People decide, oh how you facete love of democracy, and finally, like tyrant kings of olde, expropriated his estate as they did from time to time with uppity Lords who didn't play the game, to the tune of half a billion dollars.

Every last bit of it with cover story memes to push.

Here's what's going on, stripped of the facetious meme polish: "We need to push Puerto Rico and DC to statehood to get more senators and congressmen."

That is all.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

James Carville is calling which shots, exactly?

I doubt very many people even know who he is anymore. But, yes, he did just release a podcast wherein he proposed that Democrats do those things--just as soon as they regain control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress...

"Carville says conditions are drastic, citing the GOP push to add five additional House seats in Texas ahead of the 2026 midterms, and require a more forward approach if Democrats capture the White House and both chambers of Congress.

“Any of those things in isolation I would be skeptical about. I would be cautious about,” Carville said of his ideas.

“I would say, ‘Well, I don’t know if that’s the greatest idea in the world, you’re opening Pandora’s box.’ If you want to save democracy, I think you got to do all of those things because we just are moving further and further away from being anything close to democracy,” he added."

The "greatest idea in the world", indeed...

[Bwaaah]

Last week, a doorman from across the street reminded me how he was forced to either be vaccinated or lose his job. (I know of three doormen in that building who were similarly coerced into vaccination.) Being members of a large powerful union meant nothing; Democrats and unions tend to be bedfellows.

Those doormen remember which authorities made no attempt to defend them. If you are human enough to understand the emotions surrounding forced injection, it's easy to understand how enduring are their recollections of that fact.

Il Douche, playing the world's smallest violin, for the little guy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Forced by whom?

[Bwaaah]

Their employer, a condominium corporation, by edict of the board of directors, gave all its employees that choice: get vaccinated and submit evidence thereof, or have their employment terminated.

To clarify my point, they weren't forced to do anything. They didn't even have to make a choice. But doing nothing would have caused them to lose their jobs.

Those people who were quite effectively coerced into getting injected with vaccine tend to have very low regard for the people and institutions that permitted that invasive action.

[Nelson]

He had a choice. The fact that he chose to get a shot rather than find another job was the choice he made.

This “forced to be vaccinated” nonsense doesn’t work since no one was ever injected against their will or without their consent. The fact that they didn’t like the choices that existed doesn’t suddenly make “the better of two bad options” suddenly a Constitutional violation of the right to bodily autonomy.

Point to anyone, any single person, who refused to get a shot and was given one anyway. You can’t, because it never happened.

When it’s stuff you don’t like, your standard is the same as qualified immunity. When it’s things you do like, your standard is as loose as the bowels of a person with Montezuma’s Revenge drinking coffee with a quadruple dose of Metamucil.

[Life of Brian]

This “forced to be vaccinated” nonsense doesn’t work since no one was ever injected against their will

Ah, I see. Among other sweeping societal changes, 2021 was also the (apparently very quiet) end of the notion of acting under duress. So glad you're here to set us straight!

[not guilty]

The actual application of force to vaccinate someone would raise significant constitutional questions. There is a substantive due process right to freedom from bodily restraint and punishment. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 673-674 (1977) (administration of corporal punishment to a high school student); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 169 (1952) (forcible, involuntary administration of an emitic to recover contents of an arrestee's stomach). It is fundamental that the state cannot hold and physically punish an individual except in accordance with due process of law. Ingrahm, at 674. See also, Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997) (substantive due process protects a right to bodily integrity).

Governmental intrusions below the skin also implicate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Compare and contrast Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 (1966) (while "the overriding function of the Fourth Amendment is to protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the State," nonconsensual extraction of blood from a person arrested with probable cause of drunken driving existed was reasonable), and Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) (surgery to extract a bullet under general anesthesia was unreasonable).

The key, however, is that Rochin, Schmerber and Winston each involved actual, forcible intrusions by government agents under the skin of a nonconsenting person. A governmental requirement that a person submit to a vaccination or pay a fine is well within the police power. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), remains good law.

[Bwaaah]

I clarified, and effectively retracted my use of the term "force." I was speaking in political terms, not legal terms.

The political problem for Democrats is that they pretty much wholeheartedly endorsed or stood silent to coerced vaccination by threat of severe punishment. (Not severe as in anal impalement, but severe as in "You no longer have a job.")

NG and Nelson do a good job of emphasizing that prevailing Democratic sentiment. It's hard to reconcile their harshly unyielding voices with any notion of concern or benevolence. (They _know_ they're talking about "idiots.")

[Nelson]

“ NG and Nelson do a good job of emphasizing that prevailing Democratic sentiment”

I was not, and never have, been a supporter of the overly-cautious, overly-long response to Covid. While I understand and accept that, in the face of a unique and deadly pandemic, overreaction is understandable, I think it went too far for too long. I have never and will never be a blanket defender of the latter stage Covid measures.

But the vaccine was safe, effective, and exactly the same in character as a wide array of other vaccines that people are required to have.

The hard right has this false narrative that it was all Dems and Biden, but this was a bipartisan effort. They lie about it being dangerous, when it wasn’t.

And if you have to get a vaccine that, despite the false rhetoric and hyperbolic claims of the hard right, was shown to be safe and effective in order to have a job, that isn’t an imposition. It isn’t coercive. It isn’t infringing yiur rights.

It was a life choice. Sometimes those are hard. The fact that swallowing a heap of bullshit from political wingnuts made it harder doesn’t mean that people were put upon.

Life (and life choices) is hard, wear a cup.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Right. So the doorman was not forced (by anyone connected with the government) to get vaccinated. He was forced by his employer.

Not exactly surprising, in a country where most employment is "at will", and employees have few protections from being fired for almost any reason.

But now you want to blame the government for not stepping in and forcing employers to permit unvaccinated employees to work in public-facing jobs. You care about no other employee protections--just this one.

Got it.

[not guilty]

No, he was not "forced by his employer." The application of force there would likely have been a criminal offense. He was merely required, as a condition of continued employment, to do something he would have preferred not to do.

The doorman likely was looking for a job when he found his present one.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Pathetic. You certainly know what the word "forced" means in that context.

[Nelson]

“ He was forced by his employer.”

No, he wasn’t. He was told of a requirement for employment. Employers are known to have requirements for their employees. It isn’t unusual, nor is it coercive in any way.

If you don’t want the shot, don’t get the shot. Literally no one will give it to you without your consent.

Jesus, you hard-right folks are such whiners.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You, too. Shameful.

[not guilty]

The words "force" and "forced" are much abused by commenters on this blog.

I have suggested before that they use a three inch butt plug for its intended purpose (without lube) to gain an appreciation of what force means -- perhaps with someone else holding loaded guns to their heads, so they can understand what being forced means.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Jesus, NG, you're going full Jason on us!

Bad day?

[David Nieporent]

Those doormen remember which authorities made no attempt to defend them.

Defend them from what?

[Bwaaah]

Defend them, for example, from parties that made vaccination a [new] condition of employment.

[Nelson]

Aw, did the guy have to do something he didn’t want to do in order to keep his job? Welcome to every job, ever.

[Bwaaah]

It wasn't a guy. It was large numbers of people across the country.

Just a normal day at work, was it, you say?

Why your inclination to reiterate the fuck-those-weak-people attitude? Toward what end? My key point was: they read you loud and clear. And they vote.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Is there a limiting principle to when the government should step in and interfere with a private company's conditions of employment, or is it just "Things with which I disagree?"

[Bwaaah]

What are the empowering principles by which the government has extended so many employment protections, so many employment regulations, upon businesses, for so many reasons? Common interpretations of the Commerce Clause have the effect of greatly narrowing the protections of commercial enterprises from governmental intrusion, and easily afford government the power to extend protections in a situation such as this. (Does anybody anymore doubt the latitude of what government can do?)

But again, those points attend to legal questions. They don't fix the reputational damage that comes from being a political party that endorses coerced vaccination. I don't hear anybody saying that position was unlawful, nor do I hear the victims of that coercion wondering about the legal justifications.

A party that endorses coercive punishment of its peaceable citizens? You're probably better off saving your daggers for criminals, foreign enemies, and in defense of the tax collector.

But jeez...these were just people who didn't want that stuff injected into their bodies. Why justify punishing them? Why not, perhaps, merely, an expression of regret for the unintended consequences of a well-intended, very heavy-handed action (that was implicitly or explicitly sanctioned by respective state governments)?

Yes, as holders of that position, of not wanting to be vaccinated, those people got screwed. Some people here seem to take the point one step further: they got screwed, and they deserved to be screwed. That message sounds like the reputation of the Democratic party.

[Nelson]

“ It wasn't a guy. It was large numbers of people across the country.”

Like I said. Every job, ever. The fact that the people who swallowed the hard right nonsense whole (remember ivermectin? Hydroxychloroquin? Various other snake oil that the anti-vaxxers swore was better?) are whiny bitches is irrelevant.

Sometimes (often, in fact), your employer requires you to do something you don’t like. Suck it up, snowflake.

[Bwaaah]

Say it again, Nelson. Say it like a nagging grown-up chastising a foolish child. Say it like there's somebody who could actually find meaningful insight in your nasty message.

Say it again.

[Nelson]

“ Say it like there's somebody who could actually find meaningful insight in your nasty message.”

Which nasty message? That the hard right is a bunch of whiners? That’s not nasty, it’s just a true observation.

Just listen to Trump whining about how “u fairly” he’s treated. As if a born-on-third-base trust fund baby has ever encountered anything except preferential treatment.

So I ask you, what part is nasty? Calling a whiner a whiner?

[Bwaaah]

Suck it up, snowflake.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"But again, those points attend to legal questions. They don't fix the reputational damage that comes from being a political party that endorses coerced vaccination. I don't hear anybody saying that position was unlawful, nor do I hear the victims of that coercion wondering about the legal justifications."

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But you seem to be arguing that the government should have stepped in and ordered these private corporations to not mandate vaccination as a condition of employment. It was the corporation taking the action with which you disagree, not the government.

[Bwaaah]

I can't justify the government intervening. It was more a situation where I'd depend on prevailing cultural values to lean for or against various options. That is effectively how it played out.

According to my values, I'd emphatically encourage vaccination, but also seriously discourage punitive measures toward those who choose to opt out from vaccination. It's not OK to me to coerce people into doing stuff like that.

On that issue, I regret the strikingly unsympathetic views that prevailed (and seem to prevail) in people on the left. I get that there were serious life and death issues involved. For me, that doesn't nullify a presumed respect for the physical autonomy of the individual, and deference to his/her personal choices therein.

It wasn't the government that disappointed me. It was my neighbors.

[bernard11]

I don't think Trumpists have any business talking about family separation.

Glass houses, you know.

[bernard11]

attempted to imprison the leading candidate for president of the opposing political party during the presidential election,

Which leading candidate was clearly guilty of criminal offenses.

[Riva]

I do trust democrats. I trust they will embrace any repugnant efforts to secure and expand their own political power. We could cite to their fabrication and promotion of the Russian collusion fraud but since most here are idiots who know nothing except what they read in the Wash Post or NY Times they’re probably unaware of the extent of the fraud.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You wouldn't understand whatever was published anyway, if the past is anything to go by.

[Riva]

And right on cue. But we're actually spoiled for choice with the aforementioned idiots in this comments section. Hard to turn around without bumping into one.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, Team D is just going to have to win national elections, first.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They did. And Trumpists attempted a coup to undo it.

[Commenter_XY]

Last time I checked, Joseph R Biden (The Cauliflower) was sworn into office as President on January 20th 2021, at the constitutionally appointed time, after a controversial and contested election in November 2020. And yes, LTG, there was a riot in Washington DC in early January 2020, at the Capitol Building. Participants in that riot have been subsequently pardoned by POTUS Trump after a lengthy and grueling legal process (admittedly, caused by their own personal behavior).

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you know what the word “attempt” means?

Here I’ll help: Commenter XY committed a federal sex crime by accessing CSAM in an attempt to see if Hunter Biden was involved.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I know what the word attempt means, as in 'attempted a coup'. That 'attempted a coup' is utter nonsense. There was a riot at the Capitol Building, for which many appropriately served time in prison (I thought), and were ultimately pardoned by POTUS Trump. The Cauliflower took the oath of office, at the constitutionally appointed time, despite the Capitol Building Riot earlier in the month. That is in fact, what actually happened.

If it was a coup, it is the most unorganized and inept attempted coup in American history. What the hell kind of coup starts with a bunch of rioters who, with some exceptions, were not armed with guns? Which I would think would be needed to effectuate a change.

Truly, do go on with the fable of the attempted coup.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Trump and his followers tried to stay in power after losing an election. That’s a coup attempt no matter how stupid it ended up being. Many criminal attempts are stupid.

But I wouldn’t expect a successful sex criminal to understand how feeble an attempt can be and still be an attempt.

[bernard11]

Stupid, incompetent, and failed coup attempts are still coup attempts.

Imagine an idiot who decides to rob a bank. He makes no attempt at disguise, fails to plan an escape, and forgets to bring a bag to carry the money.

Is stupidity a defense to a charge of attempted robbery?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is he sufficiently MAGA?

[Commenter_XY]

Where were you on 1/6/2021, do you remember with absolute clarity? Like almost all of America, I got up and went to work. When news of the riot and mayhem at the Capitol Bldg came through, my reaction was 'WTF'; then, 'Glad we have US Marines on hand to address any issues'. And promptly went about my day. That night, I saw the Senate vote (albeit delayed, on account of the riot). I also saw a POTUS handle this situation very awkwardly (POTUS Trump took too long to say, 'Go home').

What did you do on 1/7/2021, the next day? Well, outside of the DC metro area (where presumably, everyone was dressed in sackcloth and ashes), America got up, said their prayers, ate their Wheaties and went to work, or school, or whatever creative endeavor they had. What coup? A riot, sure. For which many were justly punished. A coup? NFW. An armed coup at effectuating a change in government was never in the cards. What changed in the heartland (or cities) of America on 1/7/2021? Precisely nothing. The S&P 500 was ~3800 on 1/7/2021, today the index is >6000.

[bernard11]

As I said, a failed attempt is still an attempt.

None of what you just said refutes that. It just means the coup failed.

[Brett Bellmore]

A failed attempt is indeed still an attempt. But "coup" actually has a meaning, and it was not a failed attempt at a "coup".

It was more akin to what Gore tried back in 2000, altering the outcome of a close election based on legally bogus after the fact manipulations. Not at all admirable, and only pseudo-legal, conforming to the outward forms of the law, but not its substance.

I'm not sure what term really fits that best, but it isn't "coup", because a "coup" is a violent takeover of government, and the relatively minor bit of violence on January 6th wasn't planned by Trump, instead put an end to his machinations.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If Gore had also engaged in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election by illegal means, sure, exactly the same.

(By the way, "coup" is not the name of a particular crime, so its meaning is somewhat flexible. There are many types of "coup", not only the one you prefer at this moment.)

[bernard11]

a "coup" is a violent takeover of government, and the relatively minor bit of violence on January 6th wasn't planned by Trump, instead put an end to his machinations.

Your definition is nonsense. First, there have been coups with little or no violence (admittedly, the threat was there).

Second, a coup is an illegal attempt to overthrow the government. Violence, is often involved, but is not a prerequisite.

Third, your description of Gore's behavior is stupid, hyperpartisan, BS - a bunch of lies. Really deranged, even for you. Gore went to court, and when he lost there he conceded. That you don't like his arguments is absolutely irrelevant, and is zero basis for accusing him of trying to stage a coup.

Trump also went to court - what, about 60 times? - and no one says that was an attempt at a coup. It was the later, illegal stuff, including Jan. 6, which he certainly provoked, and explicitly praised.

[shawn_dude]

So DJT attempted to overturn American democracy by holding on to power after losing an election. But he failed and Americans went on with life so no harm no foul?

And then you voted for him to have a second try at establishing an autocracy.

I've said it before... when this is all done, I hope we don't make the same mistake we did at the end of the Civil War and let the miscreants go free to rewrite history and set us up for a third war.

[not guilty]

"Imagine an idiot who decides to rob a bank. He makes no attempt at disguise, fails to plan an escape, and forgets to bring a bag to carry the money."

Does he enter the bank? That could be the difference between an attempt and not having committed any crime at all. Or he may have a defense or affirmative defense of renunciation.

Different states have different definitions, but the ALI Model Penal Code treatment of criminal attempt at § 5.01 is pretty typical. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/6141-tanaka-criminal-law-casebook/resources/10.2.1.1-model-penal-code-mpc-501-criminal-attempt/

[bernard11]

Does he enter the bank?

Well, yes. I thought that was implicit, and that he actually approached a teller window and did or said something that suggested he was a robber.

[not guilty]

Under those conditions, it definitely qualifies as an attempt.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Republicans should do a lot of things, which they're not going to do. Foremost among them, calling a constitutional convention.

[Commenter_XY]

Absent a pre-17th amendment posture, real and enduring structural change is not possible (I don't think). The challenge with the Senate is the body was created to represent the interests of that state, independent of political party (in the sense that State Legislatures did the appointing, and potentially removing).

In that scenario, with state legislatures doing the appointing, the composition of the Senate changes. Then structural change becomes possible, and can be enduring. Sadly, I just do not see an appetite to repeal 17A, and readily concede that I am in an extreme minority on this question.

[Martinned]

The challenge with the Senate is the body was created to represent the interests of that state, independent of political party (in the sense that State Legislatures did the appointing, and potentially removing).

Everything up to the 12th amendment was written without political parties in mind. Having state legislatures involved made the senate neither more nor less partisan.

[David Nieporent]

Most states had popular elections for senate before the 17th was ratified.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. But until the 17th amendment they retained the power to reclaim that authority any time they wanted, something Senators had to keep in mind.

[bernard11]

The challenge with the Senate is the body was created to represent the interests of that state, independent of political party

I don't understand this at all. Why would the selection be independent of party? The legislators belong to parties, and the majority is going to pick someone of their party. Plus, "the interests of the state" are not well-defined, and one's view of what they are is closely correlated with one's political party.

So a Senator will reflect the views of the majority party in their state. Your claim about "independent of political party" is nonsense.

On top of which, having the legislature pick the Senator is a recipe for corruption and cronyism.

Yes, you are in a small minority, and rightly so.

[Riva]

That won’t happen. Democrats would oppose that with everything they have. They don’t actually like constitutional methods to amend the Constitution. They prefer to go judge shopping and have the federal courts do that.

[Bob from Ohio]

[deleted-wrong place]

[Frank Drackman]

Carville reminds me of Jimmuh Cartuh, he gets some horrible type of Cancer and lives to be a hundred years old.

[tylertusta]

Democrats are embracing the very thing that the founders refused from the British and which started the Revolution: virtual representation.

If rejoining the British guaranteed Democrats a lock onto political power in the United States, I'm not sure that Democrats would turn it down.

[Joe_dallas]

Tyler - the dem's continue to embrace leftist policies that even the leftists in europe are abandoning because they dont work.

[tylertusta]

No argument from me.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is this a Canada reference?

[Swede425]

Skeletor is a sad, angry old man who lost his party and doesn't understand how or why.
He's at the end of his life and his Hail Mary shows how confused he is and that he has nothing left to lose.
He's the Democrat version of Karl Rove.

[Bob from Ohio]

He also just had to apologize to the First Lady by saying she had been an "escort".

[Riva]

Why are you insulting Skeletor? What did he do to deserve a comparison with Carville?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why can't Maura Healey sue Canada for all the %%^&&$# smoke they send across the border every summer?

Another summer with smoke from Canadian forest fires...

[Martinned]

In which court would you propose that she do that? And which bit of "Canada" do you propose should be the defendant? I don't think the government of Canada is setting its own forests on fire...

(Well, they do, but that's not the cause of these forest fires.)

[Michael P]

I think she's too busy planning a redistricting of her state so that it has no Republican representatives in the House, or something.

[Mr. Bumble]

...of course there are currently no Republican representatives in the MA delegation.

[A Japanese Student]

Isn't MA one of the only states where Democrats are so powerful mathematics won't allow a single red district?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well maybe if you built the ultimate gerrymander they could squeeze one out.
You know, a majority minority district.

[Michael P]

Probably not. They got 80% of the vote in 2024, and all nine seats in the House. But they are one of the states that are least biased in favor of Democrats: https://www.americanexperiment.org/on-gerrymandering-three-cheers-for-minnesota/

[Frank Drackman]

Short Memory Grasshopper, there were 2 Repubiclown Congressmen from Tax-a-Chussetts as recently as 1997, 28 years ago, or 10 Fuckushima's. (Hiro-shima, Fucku-shima, maybe they should "retire" the "Shima" from City names)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank has a shorter memory -- it was the '89-'91 Dukakas meltdown that got those two guys in.

[Frank Drackman]

You're right for once Dr. Ed, the Dukakis meltdown after AlGore ran that Race-ist "Willie Horton" Commercial in the 1988 DemoKKKrat Primary

[Jerry B.]

Look at the Congressional District map of Maryland, if you want to see maximum gerrymandering.

[Jazzizhep]

Illinois takes the gold medal. It looks like a drunk 5 year old tried to draw a “y.”

45% voted for Trump in the last election.

16.6% of Republican representation in the House.

And Texas dems chose that state to bitch about gerrymandering?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Voting patterns "in the last election" is not how anything is supposed to be apportioned, but historically, neither Republicans nor Democrats have much embraced any system which relies on independent commissions to draw the districts.

Perhaps now is the time? What's your proposal?

[Jazzizhep]

My point is whatever metric you want to use Republicans are massively underrepresented due to a congressional map that looks like lines instead of blocks. Texas dems chose the most gerrymandered state to complain about gerrymandering.

2024–45% Republican candidate

2020–40% Republican candidate

2016–38% Republican candidate

2012–40% Republican Candidate

I repeat. Only 16% of congressional districts are Republican.

See a pattern? We draw congressional maps to make sure 13% of the population has a representative, but alienating 40% of the population is OK? The hypocrisy is strong.

As many have suggested, I would overlay a sheet of pentagons and color in contiguous pentagons, with no more than one open side until the population goal is met.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No state is more blatantly gerrymandered than North Carolina, by the Republican state legislature.

[Jazzizhep]

OMG you are an idiot. Illinois map is essentially three lines that start in the southern part of the state and branch off. The left branch travels mostly west. The right branch travels northeast.

Maybe the NC map cuts off a possible seat or two for dems if drawn differently.

The Illinois map reduces 40% of the population to 16.6% representation. That’s based on 12 years of election results.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

As of yesterday, North Carolina has 7,558,431 total voters. 2.294,204 are registered as Republican. That is just over 30 percent. In the state Senate, there are 30 Republicans out of 50 total, 60 percent. In the state House of Reps, there are 71 Republicans out of 120 total, about 59 percent. It was a lot worse before the 2024 elections. You have to look at a lot more than just how the lines look. Idiot.

[Jazzizhep]

“As of yesterday” is a lie. Your numbers come from Carolina Demography Blog published in September 2024.

I love how you completely exclude context. Yeah, Republicans only have 30% of registered voters. You failed to mention Dems only have 32% and unaffiliated is 38%.

Did you think I wouldn’t check?

32% is about 1/3. Four members of the House out of 14 seats is about 1/3. Looks like Dems need to do a better job with the unaffiliated.

I suggest ditching the radical gender ideology to start with.

Look at how each county voted in the last election. Like most purple states it is a stark red with dots of blue,

Like I said, if they cut off two districts it would be eight Republican and six Dem districts without the gerrymandering. Not even close to Illinois.

Somehow those “30%” Republicans manage to send N.C. Electoral votes to Trump. Go figure. They also, somehow, elected two Republican senators.

Just look at the map. It’s not funky or have long, skinny lines. It is composed of blocks.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No sir, they come directly from the NC State Board of Elections website. The numbers I quoted were what they had as of August 8, 2025.

Do I think that you wouldn't check what? Your comment makes no sense. Yes they voted for electors for Trump, but they also elected a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Attorney General. The notion that all the unaffiliated voters would all only vote for Republican state legislators is ridiculous. They maintain their huge majority in the legislature due to massive gerrymandering. You are obsessed with the visual aspect of district line drawing, but NC is a very good example of how you can avoid bad looking districts but still achieve the desired result.

[not guilty]

Massachusetts is a blue state commonwealth which nevertheless had Republican governors from 1991 until 2007 and from 2015 to 2023.

(I realize the above comment was about House seats, but Republicans are not entirely toothless in Massachusetts.)

[Brett Bellmore]

You can't gerrymander state-wide elections, and Governors are elected state-wide. So the fact that Republicans can occasionally elect state-wide officers, while getting no members of the legislature, actually underscores that the state is gerrymandered.

[A Japanese Student]

Not really. Republicans are able to elect their governor pick because they chose the right person - MA is a solid blue state, so you need a lot of Democratic support.

Given the current (2016-) state of national politics, it's very hard to get a blue voter to cast a ballot for a Republican representative.

And yes, I did actually attempt to gerrymander in favor of Republicans, using 2020 presidential map (the latest data available on Districtr.org). I got to population 670k with Democrats winning 50.7%-49.2%. There were no geographically close red precincts. Still needed 110k.

[A Japanese Student]

The red district I tried to make looks like a typical gerrymander. Starting with suburbs of Springfield, then a diagonal strip of Worcester County (including Gardner suburbs), then a narrow line ending with some red parts of Essex-Middlesex border. On the southern part are precincts neighboring CT/RI. Another narrow strip to Lakeville and Dighton.

Despite all that effort it still tilted blue.

[bernard11]

Not only is MA a solid blue state, the Republican Party here was run by incompetent strong Trumpists.

That's not how you get Democrats to vote for a Republican.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Ashleigh Merchant frees a man falsely accused of kidnapping a kid in a Wal-Mart in GA. Eat your heart out NG.

The guy spent 45 days in jail before a bond hearing where he was granted a $10,000 bond.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A Youtube video is the best source you could find?

[Kazinski]

Takes 2 seconds to find an article if you want a different source, I did.

Turns out the "abduction attempt" was the mother had the toddler on her lap while she was driving an electric scooter cart. She hit a display and the kid wobbled and the man reached out to prevent the kid from falling off her lap. It took nothing more than reviewing the security camera footage to confirm his account.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sorry, I don't click on Two Minutes Hate links anymore.

If someone is so lazy they cannot use a credible printed source, I doubt I will miss anything important.

[darkknight9]

My refrigerator just busted and had to throw nearly everything out.

PITA

That's all.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Why do HVACs break all of the time while refrigerators rarely break?? It’s the same technology.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is that a personal observation?

[Bwaaah]

Put the refrigerator outdoors for its lifetime, and see whether that doesn't narrow the spread. The larger size of HVAC, and the resulting increase in amplitude of vibration (and friction), contributes to the rate of deterioration.

[Dr. Ed 2]

DON'T!!!

You will burn them out if the outside air is less than 50 degrees.
It's built on the presumption of that differential.

[Frank Drackman]

Refrigerator in my "Man Cave" is a 1939 Frigidaire (made by General Motors, weird) that was my Grandparents from 1939-2010 (when Grandma went into a Nursing home at 96)
I was given the task of getting rid of it, seemed a shame to dump it, or take it to those "Pawn Stars" Crooks (went to their shop in Vegas, what a rip off, No "Chumblie", No "Rick", No "Big Hoss", No "Old Man" (OK, he had died, he had an excuse) just a regular Pawn Shop)*
Still cools great, Freezer works, (No, it's not Self Defrosting) Once in while the Compressor will take a while to kick back on (it's 86) but it keeps my Dos Equis at a frosty 37F.

OTOH, just replaced our Kitchen Refrigerator (Mrs. Drackman's Bailiwick) when the previous one died at 10 (a Parent shouldn't have to bury a 10 yr old Refrigerator) of course she has to get the one with all the "Bells and Whistles" (actually, it has a bunch of crap, but no actual Bells and Whistles) It has multiple filters for the water and ice maker (Is it that hard to fill Ice Trays (or get a Divorce Lawyer)
and it tells you what the temperature is right on the door, which is how she knew it was history.

Frank

* as a licensed Pawn Broker myself, "Hardcore Pawn" (on "TruTV" back 2012-2014) was much more realistic.

[hobie]

July 16, 2018, Helsinki. Dual press conference Putin/Trump

Q President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election? And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As interpreted.) Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-putin-russian-federation-joint-press-conference/

Same conference where Trump trashed America's intelligence in favour of Russia and also held a tete-a-tete with Putin without any aides.

"No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant," Mr McCain said in a statement.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Mr. Peabody.

[hobie]

Just thought I'd remind the rubes...Russia Hoax? Wellllll....not so much.

Epstein Hoax?...not so much

Lot of hoaxes for you to keep track of, Bumble. Just trying to help, bro.

[Michael P]

You probably also believe Putin when he says (whatever is Russian for) "special military operation" and "de-Nazification".

[hobie]

Do you think at the press briefing Trump yelled, 'Vladimir, STOP!' I guess like any couple, they too have spats

[Michael P]

Do you smell burnt toast?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, his statement was also corroborated by the government's and the Senate's findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election: We know they did it, and by his own admission, Putin has told us why they did it.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Hillary threw the Steele Dossier into the trash where it belonged! McStain scrounged around in the trash and retrieved it and handed it over to the FBI! And Comey used the fact McStain handled it as a reason it belonged in the ICA.

[hobie]

Steele dossier bad. Anything else?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

McStain bad…his daughter Miss McPiggy bad.

[hobie]

McStain also bad. Hillary also bad. Anything else?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, SBF, that was a good one,
Meghan McCain/Miss Piggy,
well played

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Putin wanted Trump to win in 2016?
So did 62,984,828 Voters probably a few of them were Amuricans
and last year it was 77,302,580
Real question is with Hillary Rodman and Common Law Harris as his opposition, why his vote count was that low
John McCain? Now you're stealing Dead Veteran's Valor? as Jerry S. would say
"Sounds about right"
at least George just claimed to be an Architect

Frank

[Krayt]

They didn't want it because he wanted to norrmalize relations with Putin = get rid of our sanctions on the oligarchs there. He won in spite of all this sketchy stuff.

That's how offensive the Democrats have also gotten.

2024 was a decision between a guy fine with dictator tanks rolling through Europe vs. a party that cynically poured money all over America, knowing it would cause inflation.

Thanks, parties!

[Martinned]

The war on science continues:

US President Donald Trump's administration is revising past editions of the nation's premier climate report -- its latest move to undermine the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming.

The decision, announced by Energy Secretary Chris Wright during a CNN appearance Tuesday night, follows the government's revocation of the Endangerment Finding, a scientific determination that underpins a host of regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Asked by CNN's Kaitlan Collins why previous editions of the National Climate Assessment were no longer available online, former fracking company CEO Wright responded: "Because we're reviewing them, and we will come out with updated reports on those and with comments on those."

First published in 2000, the National Climate Assessment has long been viewed as a cornerstone of the US government's understanding of climate science, synthesizing input from federal agencies and hundreds of external experts.

Previous editions warned in stark terms of mounting risks to America's economy, infrastructure, and public health if greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed. But in April, the administration moved to dismiss the hundreds of scientists working on the sixth edition.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250807-us-to-rewrite-its-past-national-climate-reports

[hobie]

Environment. Chris Wright: CEO of Liberty Energy, North America's second largest hydraulic fracturing company

Medicine. Robert Kennedy

[Martinned]

That sure showed those evil elites!

[hobie]

We need to get you talking like an American hillbilly, Martin. First tip: Use 'them' instead of 'those' in that sentence.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Previous editions warned in stark terms of mounting risks to America's economy, infrastructure, and public health if greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed."

If previous stark warnings had actually been valid, a considerable portion of the US coast would presently be underwater, polar bears would be extinct, and the North-West passage would be in routine use.

[Mr. Bumble]

Denier.

[apedad]

Previous warnings have been valid.

A slow-motion catastrophe has been playing out in the coastal North Carolina village of Rodanthe, where 10 houses have fallen into the Atlantic since 2020. Three have been lost since (Sept. 2024).

The most recent collapse was Tuesday afternoon, when the wooden pilings of a home nicknamed “Front Row Seats” buckled in the surf.

The destruction was decades in the making as beach erosion and climate change slowly edged the Atlantic closer to homes in the somewhat out-of-the way vacation spot.

The erosion has been measured to be as much as 10 to 15 feet (3 to 4.5 meters) a year or more in some places.

https://apnews.com/article/rodanthe-home-collapses-north-carolina-outer-banks-6f82caa6d329058fe0f58f6c7c88becb

[Mr. Bumble]

"Previous warnings have been valid."
Hardly.
Building homes near oceans (and on what are essentially sand bars) has always been a crap shoot.

[Michael P]

He's probably quite sure that New Inlet and Oregon Inlet have always been caused by global warmening.

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

[SRG2]

If previous stark warnings had actually been valid, a considerable portion of the US coast would presently be underwater, polar bears would be extinct, and the North-West passage would be in routine use.

Were any of those forecasts either in the Climate Assessment, or the IPCC reports, or are you just being a liar?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I have my differences with Climate Change orthodoxy, but such warnings usually relate to a fairly long period, e.g., 50 years or 100 years, not next week.

[Frank Drackman]

Which, since the World is 5,785 years old, are meaningless

[Nelson]

“ If previous stark warnings had actually been valid, a considerable portion of the US coast would presently be underwater, polar bears would be extinct, and the North-West passage would be in routine use.”

Do you actually believe this vapid hyperbole? Or is it like blaming worldwide increases in temperature on heat islands and modern equipment (one of my favorite BrettScience episodes)?

[Martinned]

A thought that might be relevant for the Trump stans on this blog, courtesy of a court in Colombia:

As Montesquieu rightly said, the law must be like death, which spares no one. May this act be a reaffirmation of the supreme value of justice in a free society, and may the judgment to be announced, regardless of its content, be understood not as a political ruling, but as an act of legal coherence, ethical responsibility, and commitment to the truth.

Former President Alvaro Uribe was found guilty of bribing witnesses in order to press fabricated criminal charges against Senator Ivan Cepeda. Uribe got 12 years of house arrest.

https://colombiareports.com/colombias-former-president-alvaro-uribe-found-guilty-of-bribing-witnesses/

[Commenter_XY]

eurotrash, don't you have things at home to fix? I don't think Colombia has the same blase attitude toward busybodies that we do in America.

[Martinned]

If you keep screwing up your country the way you have been doing, eventually it will become completely irrelevant to the rest of the world what the US does. But we're not there yet. So for now I'm going to continue asking you not to fuck your shit up, if you don't mind.

[Mr. Bumble]

"And yet, during that century the Netherlands went from being a world leading commercial and naval power that could invade England at will (1688) and dictate peace terms in global conflicts (1713), to a third tier power that wasn't even worth attacking unless it attacked first instead of knowing its place."
Maybe this is an opening for you to re-assume the mantel of greatness.

[Martinned]

We should at least be trying to make our country better, instead of running it into the ground on purpose, which seems to be your MO.

[Mr. Bumble]

We who? Do you plan on decamping to the US or are you talking about the Netherlands?

[Frank Drackman]

We have, in the 90's you had to go to Amsterdam to buy premium Ganja, now you can get better (redacted) in friggin Ohio (which like Florida, is no longer a "Swing" State)
Hmm, I wonder if there's a relationship, easier access to Mind Expanding Substances, People in "Swing" States "Swing" Red (to match their eyes)

Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Perhaps they want to destroy the village, in order to save it?

[hobie]

Perhaps Martin is providing a parable to help the hillbillies understand what happens when a sitting president tries to frame another for something the sitting president did himself

[Frank Drackman]

You know one thing about Hillbillies? They don't like Valor Stealers.

[Malika the Maiz]

Yeah, people making up stuff about themselves is something they’d frown on.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, so stop claiming to be a woman, they REALLY don't like that one.

[Malika the Maiz]

Never claimed that, more disordered thought from our made up vet, doctor, etc.,

[Bwaaah]

Lemme guess: not a man, not a woman, just creepy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Never claimed that"

Ok Queenie. You just implied it from your choice of former handle.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s a news story. Don’t be weird and agro.

[Bob from Ohio]

"news story"

He started it with "thought that might be relevant for the Trump stans on this blog". He wanted push back and CXY obliged him.

[not guilty]

"eurotrash, don't you have things at home to fix? I don't think Colombia has the same blase attitude toward busybodies that we do in America."

Actually, XY, your political tribe venerates and kowtows shamelessly to busybodies who interfere in other folks' lives regarding sex and reproduction (or the avoidance of the latter).

[Malika the Maiz]

Huh, Kaz didn’t cover this already?

The number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits for at least a week rose to the highest level since November 2021 in the latest sign of widening cracks in the labor market.

Workers who have received benefits through a “continued claim” for unemployment insurance jumped to 1.97 million in late July, up from 1.85 million in early January, according to Labor Department data released Thursday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/08/07/unemployment-claims-rise/

[hobie]

Trump: America is a failing nation

[Frank Drackman]

did he mention the epidemic of Stolen Valor?

[Malika the Maiz]

Made up persona attacks someone for being a made up vet, every accusation….

[Kazinski]

Length of average unemployment is a concern, which is one reason we need interest rate cuts.

Unemployment is holding steady at between 4.1-4.2%, and there hasn't been a lot of layoffs either, but job growth is slow, and its a tough market to look for a job.

The only major demographic that's doing well in the job market is native born Americans.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413

[Malika the Maiz]

The latest jobs report released by the Department of Labor shows that Black unemployment spiked to 7.2% in July, marking its highest rate since the COVID-19 pandemic nearly four years ago.

“Trump says he’s ‘done more for Black Americans than anyone.’ If pushing Black unemployment to its highest level since 2021 is his idea of progress, we’d hate to see what failure looks like to him,” said Brandon Weathersby, a spokesperson for American Bridge 21st Century.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/black-unemployment-under-trump-reaches-120332402.html

[Frank Drackman]

You can lead Amos to the Bale, but you can't make him tote it.

[Commenter_XY]

I'd pay more attention to the U-6 number. It is a much fairer representation of the population that we want to engage in the labor force, and are only presently marginally attached. It needs to move downward, and it has not; yet.

This is a fair critique of POTUS Trump's economic performance this year, to me. It must move downward.

[Nelson]

It won’t. Everything Trump has done has the result of slowing the economy and driving up unemployment. Why do you think he wants to artificially lower the Fed rate? It would hide the negative effects of his tariffs.

[Commenter_XY]

The U6 number is a harder number to move, Nelson. It isn't even 2 months post OBBB passage. Lets see if we're having the same conversation Labor Day 2026. It takes some time.

[Nelson]

The problem is that Trump’s policies are largely damaging to economic health. The record levels of deficit spending will drive up inflation, the supply-side tax cuts will do very little to raise economic activity (as past supply-side failures have shown), and the drag on the economy that tariffs create will lower GDP and drive up unemployment, exacerbating the problems inherent in the BBB.

What part, exactly, do you think will help drive down the U6 unemployment rate?

[Malika the Maiz]

One thing MAGAns can’t get enough of, honoring the Confederacy:

A Confederate memorial removed from Arlington National Cemetery in 2023 will be reinstalled, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Tuesday. The sculpture had been removed as part of a congressionally mandated effort to rid military bases and sites of Confederate names and images.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/08/07/arlington-cemetery-confederate-memorial-statue-hegseth/

[Sarcastr0]

Performative libs owning sure requires you to look a lot like a fan of the Confederacy these days!

[Malika the Maiz]

I like when they switch between “the Confederates were DemoKKKrats” to “hey, those Democrats can’t take those great Confederate monuments down!” It never meant anything in the first place to them.

[SRG2]

Precisely so.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not switching. Democrats want to erase their own embarrassing history, we're not interested in letting them.

Since it's their history, not ours, we don't find it so embarrassing.

[Malika the Maiz]

In fact, you find it worth celebrating (that’s what memorials, monuments and such are for). Interesting.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I wonder how republicans would vote on a bill requiring every confederate statue be accompanied by a plaque explaining what the confederacy was about and why these statues were put up when they were. It’s a mystery.

[bernard11]

Oh horseshit, Brett.

You just want to own the libs, as usual, and you are willing to honor traitors to do it.

All this business about Democrats and slavery is both true and completely irrelevant to where the parties stand today.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Democrats want to erase their own embarrassing history, we're not interested in letting them.”

So these statues are going to have indicators, like plaques or NPS staff, that are going to explain these are memorials to traitors who fought to preserve and expand race-based chattel slavery, and they were erected to perpetuate the myth of the Lost Cause and reinforce White Supremacy/Jim Crow, yes?

[Frank Drackman]

Or Memorials to actual Klansmen like Senator Robert KKK Bird (D, WVA)
In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.
More than 50 buildings built with funds from US taxpayers directed to West Virginia are named for either Byrd or his wife, Erma Ora Byrd (née James).[2] Several transportation projects named for Byrd have gained national notoriety, including the Robert C. Byrd Highway.[8] Also known as "Corridor H" of the Appalachian Development Highway System, the highway was dubbed "West Virginia's road to nowhere" in 2009 after it received a $9.5 million earmark in the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act.[8] The highway received another $21 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[8] Critics argued the traffic on the highway was too light and the cost too high for the project to continue construction until its proposed completion in 2035.[8] The State of West Virginia argued the highway was necessary as "an ideal evacuation route for Washington, about 100 miles away, in case of an emergency."[8]

[not guilty]

Senator Robert Byrd, to his credit, repudiated the Ku Klux Klan, as then-Governor Reagan repudiated the Klan endorsement of his 1980 presidential campaign.

I recall reading at the time the remarks of the then-Imperial Wizard Bill Wilkinson, who said that Reagan could not repudiate the KKK without repudiating every plank in the Republican Party platform.

[Riva]

So understanding. I’m sure you would be just as magnanimous if President Trump had been an “Exalted Cyclops” in the Klan, grateful using and supporting the Klan when it furthered his career, and later in life mildly denouncing that relationship for political expediency when he no longer needed them. Of course this denouncing did not occur in the 60s when Byrd voted against the Civil Rights Act. Of course Democrats filibustered that.

(In case you’re confused because I know you don’t like facts, Robert Byrd organized his own Klan chapter with 160 members and was promoted to Exalted Cyclops in recognition of his support and leadership)

[Sarcastr0]

To pile on, this may be your dumbest telepathy yet.

[SRG2]

Brett, you know that's bullshit. You know that Confederate flags are found amongst MAGA supporters, not Democrats. You know that things switched after the CRA. You know of the Southern Strategy.

And even if you were right, that does not explain what business the GOP has in re-erecting monuments removed. or renaming US military bases with the names of traitors.

Also, I note that all too often, what is missed in the phrase "Southern Democrats" is "Southern". if you say that it's the Democratic party that is the party of slavery, treason and racism, it is at least as merited to say that the South is the region of slavery, treason and racism - the major difference being that the Democrats changed completely. The South, not so much.

[Riva]

And some descendants of Democrat slaves are still living in Democrat controlled cities. Corrupt, crime ridden cities, I might add. Democrats just can’t seem to let the peculiar institution go.

And remind me, when was this grand Democrat Party apology for their slave owning history? Surely such a grand moment would linger in the memory. In fact did they ever really apologize for their Civil War? Defeated yes, apologize, not so much,

[SRG2]

Apologies are worthless if not backed up by deeds, and deeds make a point that apologies don't. But had you bothered to do any research you'd have found that apologies did occur, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_apologies_for_slavery_in_the_United_States

Meanwhile, when was the Southern States' apology for their slave owning history? Surely such a grand moment would linger in the memory. In fact did they ever really apologise for their Civil War? Defeated yes, apologise, not so much,

[not guilty]

Descendants of Democrat slaves, Riva?

I suspect that slaves had things on their minds other than affiliating with a political party.

[Martinned]

Wait, the government (= the executive branch of government) is undoing something that Congress "mandated"? How?

[John F. Carr]

Section 370 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 required the DoD to implement recommendations of a commission on politically unsound names and symbols:

Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall implement the plan submitted by the commission described in paragraph (b) and remove all names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Confederacy’’) or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America from all assets of the Department of Defense.

The Biden administration obeyed that law. Is the law a one time only requirement that does not prevent a future administration from erecting Confederate monuments? Is it a permanent restriction? Nobody has standing to find out. President Newsom can remove the monuments if he likes.

If I recall correctly there was a separate law prohibiting new base names honoring Confederate people. Consistent with the law, Fort Bragg is now named for a different Bragg.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6395

[bernard11]

Fort Bragg is now named for a different Bragg.

A juvenile stunt.

[Bob from Ohio]

Good lawyering.

[John F. Carr]

Technically correct. The best kind of correct.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I admit, changing the name of the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis to "James Earl Ray World" is a little too much
and they changed the name of "Washington" D.C. back to "Washington D.C." (George Washington, Christopher Columbus, and the Airport's named after Reagan, a White Surpremercist Triumvirate!)
Seriously, George Washington owned over 300 Slaves at the time of his Death (none of them a Dentist unfortunately) was on the Seal of the Confederacy, of course he was an amateur compared to Tommy Jefferson who owned over 600 (and screwed every one of them)
In comparison, Andy Jackson only had 150 and Ronaldus Maximus put his in a Blind Trust when he assumed Orifice in 1981, and when he left in 1989, he forgot that he had any.
and James Earl Ray? don't think he had any, that's why he was robbing banks

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Looks like the Medicaid work requirements cost this disordered persona performed here whatever meds he was taking.

[Poxigah146]

The reason we support Confederate monuments and flags is purely because it upsets leftists.

[Malika the Maiz]

How pathetic.

[David Nieporent]

And a lie, too. He personally supports it because he's a neo-confederate.

[SRG2]

The reason we support Confederate monuments and flags is purely because it upsets non racists

FTFY

[not guilty]

Those who committed treason in service of preserving human chattel slavery deserve no honor.

[apedad]

Hey LexAquilia!

This guy a buddy of yours?

White supremacist sentenced to 20 years for plot to disrupt Baltimore power grid

Thirty-year-old Brandon Clint Russell (a neo-Nazi leader and founder of the Atomwaffen Division ), of Orlando, Florida, was found guilty in February after a six-day trial on charges of attempting to disrupt Baltimore’s power grid with his accomplice, Sarah Beth Clendaniel, 37, of Catonsville.

Federal prosecutors said Russell and Clendaniel planned to shoot at several Baltimore-area substations — including ones in Norrisville, Perry Hall and Reisterstown — in an effort to trigger widespread blackouts and “completely destroy this whole city,” Clendaniel wrote in a message to a confidential source.

The Department of Justice estimated the potential monetary loss from the plot at more than $75 million.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/white-supremacist-sentenced-to-20-years-for-plot-to-disrupt-baltimore-power-grid/ar-AA1K6NOt?ocid=BingNewsSerp

According to wiki:

In popular culture

Karin Slaughter's book The Last Widow features Brandon Russell as a neo-Nazi leader.

The Hearts of Iron IV mod The Fire Rises features Brandon Russell as leader of a playable neo-Nazi organization within the game.

[Poxigah146]

This guy clearly needs to go away, as the 5 years he served hasn't made him learn his lesson, but I very much doubt this "scheme" to randomly shoot at a power station would cause cascading blackouts.

[Malika the Maiz]

Two sexual abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein and the family of late Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre on Friday blasted President Donald Trump after learning that Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell had been transferred to a less restrictive prison in Texas from Florida.

“This move smacks of a cover up,” Epstein victims Annie Farmer and Maria Farmer, as well as Giuffre’s relatives said in a statement.

“President Trump has sent a clear message today: Pedophiles deserve preferential treatment and their victims do not matter,” the statement said, noting that the two women and Giuffre’s family had not been notified of Maxwell’s transfer before media reports of it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/01/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-prison-florida-texas.html

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm sure the real reason for lack of MAGAt engagement is that this is a week-old story...

[hobie]

"The U.S. Air Force said Thursday it would deny all transgender service members who have served between 15 and 18 years the option to retire early and would instead separate them without retirement benefits.

The move means that transgender service members will now be faced with the choice of either taking a lump-sum separation payment offered to junior troops or be removed from the service."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-air-force-to-deny-retirement-pay-for-transgender-troops-being-separated-from-service

[Sarcastr0]

15 and 18 years of serving our country.

How would anyone justify this?

[LawTalkingGuy]

By being an asshole. And it’s interesting that the memo says denying benefits doesn’t actually reflect on service and character. So why are they doing it?

[hobie]

MAGA: Next to Bud Light, gay people tears are our favorite drink
Also MAGA: Didn't we mention in the campaign one of our top priorities would be to destroy a lot of careers?

[Frank Drackman]

Because they have a "Medically Disqualifying" Condition (You're the ones claiming being a Tranny is a Medical Condition)
The Military medically retires peoples all the time, for Diabetes, Herniated Discs, Brain Tumors, surprised a Shyster like Hunter didn't try to claim his Cocaine Addiction (ICD10 F14.20)
Of course what's considered "Medically Disqualifying" is flexible, when they're looking for Suckers, I mean "Volunteers" to go die in Iraq/Afghanistan/You-Crane, they suddenly get a lot more lenient.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Does the condition make them perform a persona on the comments section of a legal blog who pretends to be a doctor and vet but writes like a third grader on crack? Because that should probably be disqualifying.

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie, you're sort of like a Homo Bizarro Robert F Kennedy, a Hole in your Head and you see things that never were and say,
"Duh.....................How Come??"
I display more cogent thought, pop culture references, and humor in one of my "throw away" posts than in the total of your excretions since you joined this moral peril.
again with the Grammar, and you can't even get my Substance(s) of Choice correct, it's Makers Mark and the Wacky Tabacky
Tried Crack once, just once, didn't like it.
Turned out it was Fent-a-nol! (HT R. Dangerfield)
It's like wearing Flip Flops to Church, or walking a Marathon, nobody gives a Truck

Frank

[hobie]

"The psychiatric profession's primary index for diagnosing psychiatric symptoms, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), does not include racism, prejudice, or bigotry in its text or index...

...[however] Extreme racist delusions can also occur as a major symptom in other psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Persons suffering delusions usually have serious social dysfunction that impairs their ability to work with others and maintain employment."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1071634/

Be careful, Frankie. I looser interpretation of your pathologies could get your REMF pension retroactively aborted..especially in an administration that seeks to unfairly dehumanize racists

[Frank Drackman]

If you want to get all Psychological (I mean besides your envy of my Penis) a Valor Stealer (You) accusing an actual "Combat Vet" (Moi)(I've got the "Combat Action Ribbon" to prove it) of being a "REMF"
is what the Shrinks call
"Projection"
it can lead to what the OMF Surgeons call a "Mandibular Fracture"
No Threat! No Threat! (Bill Gates still hasn't invented a way to break someones Jaw over WiFi)
Just an "Observation" like Adam Goldberg made in "Dazed & Confused"
and who's the one who's always giving us "Observations" on the behavior of his Native Neighbors like he's friggin Jane Goodall??
Not Me! (HT B. Keane & Jeffy), my Neighbors are Korean, what they do with Stray Cats is their Business (They own a Korean BBQ, it's literally their Business)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Is it a hole in the Head that
makes you, Write like
this)?

Seems like a Disqualifying
condition

Ever notice the MAGAns who attack trans people the most for being weird are extremely weird themselves? Every accusation is a confession with these people (or in this case, made up persona).

[hobie]

REMFs like Frankie and Vance find it galling that others could attain ranks higher than Private

[Malika the Maiz]

Private is not his rank it’s the things he did, just like his father before him.

[Frank Drackman]

Again, abusing an Acronym is almost as bad as stealing Valor, but being a Battalion Surgeon (I know, a "Battalion Surgeon" isn't really a Surgeon, don't blame me, I didn't come up with the term) for a Marine Corpse Infantry Battalion that fought Repubiclan Guard Soliders in Kuwait, isn't really "Rear Echelon"
That would be Sergeant Major Pepper Waltz carrying his M-16 (he was Senior Enlisted, he'd have been issued a Pistol, funny how these Valor Thieves don't even go through the trouble to get their story straight) in Vicenza Italy (a Hell Hole if there ever was one) or
"Danang Dick" fighting Charlie from Connecticut (it was more like Charlie the Loan Shark repossessing Danang Dick's Mustang)
Along with your not getting the details right, "Privates" are almost nonexistent after Basic Training, "Private" is E1, the lowest Enlisted Rank, and even back during the Jurassic Era when I served you usually made E2 or even E3 by the time you got to your first unit.
Oh yeah, they do demote peoples to E1 after Court Martials, or other Offenses (you know all about most of them)
Oh yeah, and a Battalion Aid Station has 40-50 Corpsemen (HT B. Hussein), more during Combat, and all are Enlisted, so I know a thing or a million about that.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Sure, a Battalion Surgeon (
who Writes like this
cool Story !!

[Frank Drackman]

I know, I'm a regular Jack Kerouac, he'd have told you what to do with your Grammar Fat-Twat too.
Most Docs write worse than me (if you can find one who even writes), it's why I didn't do better in Med Screw-el, while I should have been studying Child's Criteria for Liver Disease I was reading "Julia Child's Kitchen" (OK, it was Erica Jong's "Fear of Flying", but "Childs" is better for the story, it's called "some parts of this work were dramatized"
You know what they call the last guy in his Med Screw-el Class?
"Doctor" of course in the 90's, nobody wanted to go into Anesthesia, didn't you hear? we're about to be replaced by Nurse Anesthetists, and they'll be replaced by Robots by 2001 (after the Y2K disaster is over)
Oh wait, the CRNA in OR#5 needs a hand.

OK, I'm back, They used to call guys like me "Renaissance (got that right with no spell check) Men" or "Raconteurs" (another spelled right) or what is it my Dad says?
"Freaks"
Seriously, you're just jealous that I had/have an interesting life, while yours is just a series of (Redacted)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Sure, weirdo
sure ( your totally not Making
stuff up just an everyday MD and Battalion Surgeon who Writes
Like this

[Frank Drackman]

You're so boring I alm
almost can't st
ay awak
to finish
thi
co

[Malika the Maiz]

Run, Forrest, run!

[hobie]

I wasn't aware that enlisted men who had not yet been to medical school could be 'Battalion Surgeons". I wonder if Frankie is stealing Battalion Surgeon valor. More likely Frankie served as Battalion Fluffer.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually a handful of Corpsemen from my BAS went on to become Physicians, Dentists, and 1 a Podiatrist (probably makes the most of all of them)
Most Military Physicians go in as O-3's (Captains in the Army, Air Farce, Lieutenants in the Navy (don't ask me why, I never was able to explain to my Mom that a Navy Lieutenant was the same as an Army/Air Force Captain)
and most Military Physicians go in the Military because Uncle Sammy paid for Med Screw-el, during which you're an O-1 (Second Lieutenant in the Army/Air Farce, "Ensign" in the Navy) you're supposed to do 45 days of Active Duty during your Summer Break, unless like me, you're retaking a Course you ummm,
"Failed to umm"
Oh screw it, a Course you Failed
Cool thing is Uncle Sammy pays for the Course, and you still get paid for your 45 days,
Then when you Grad-jew-ma-ate you go on Active Duty for 4 years, longer if you do a Military Residency.
So I never claimed to be an E-1 (which technically is a "Pay Grade" not a "Rank", I made the mistake of calling a Master Chief Corpseman an "E9" and he set me straight,
"I'm a Master Chief, not a Pay Grade! (the unvoiced "Dumbass" was understood by all in attendance)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Look how defensive the character is being written today! His valor is phony and stolen, for sure.

[hobie]

Well, well, well. Stolen Battalion Surgeon valor after all! And Battalion Fluffer highly likely. I'd wager Frankie bites his pillow at night remembering the good times.

[bernard11]

Remember. The cruelty is the point.

They are simply demonstrating to their base that they hate transsexuals too, and will do anything to harm them.

Cruelty as a political strategy. Total assholes.

[Poxigah146]

No, the point is to show these destructive, mentally ill people they're not welcome in decent society.

[Estragon]

See, at least this particular version of voltage guy isn’t afraid to admit the truth here, unlike the rest of these Trumpist weasels. And why not lean into anti trans animus? I’m sure many in MAGA land view hating on trans people as a politically sound strategy, especially after the last election. I tend to agree with LTG that people are generally not pro-asshole, but we have vividly seen the limits of that assumption in this country recently.

One thing I find interesting is how MAGA writ large generally tends to adopt these initially outlier positions. In that sense this comment section retains its usefulness even in its current nazi crustpunk iteration.

One other question I have… are you actually Don Jr.? His involvement in right wing trolling got exposed in the Ricky Vaughn affair….

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I do not believe in special rights for "transpersons", but MAGAts are doing this because they simply enjoy the bullying. And if they're too weak or too scared to bully anyone themselves, they'll settle for cheering on anyone who claims to be doing it for them.

Yes, it's trans and illegals today (after having been illegal criminals yesterday, lol), but tomorrow it will be someone else, probably Jews. Feel free to mark my words.

[shawn_dude]

If we survive as a democracy long enough to replace the current President, the next one will reverse this and give these soldiers some level of recognition and benefits. If I'm remembering correctly, Biden did something similar to recognize homosexual soldiers who were involuntarily separated due to their sexuality.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I hope so.

[SRG2]

They might win a 14A suit. It's disgusting but not unexpected.

[Kazinski]

____

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/air-force-denies-early-retirement-group-transgender-service-members-rcna223738?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=6895bca6cdccf50001b57938&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

They’re dialing the asshole meter way too far here. People don’t like breaking contracts and denying earned benefits, especially to service personnel. The too-online weirdos of the new right may delight in just being huge dicks all the time but there are a significant number of people whose support they need that definitely think both that:

1. There are only two genders and trans people are mentally ill freaks at best;
2. Those freaks earned their benefits serving their country and it’s very wrong for the government to break a promise to them.

[Mr. Bumble]

How often and to whom is early retirement usually offered?

[Michael P]

Apparently, the latest leftist talking-points blast got sent out.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I didn’t realize that keeping promises is a leftist value now. Good to know.

[Mr. Bumble]

What promise?
Again, how often and to whom is early retirement offered?

[Frank Drackman]

see below

[LawTalkingGuy]

They had a memo approving TERA exceptions and then rescinded it and there were pre-approvals that were rescinded. That is breaking a promise. It’s a rug pool.

[ThePublius]

"It’s a rug pool."

Did you mean "rug pull?"

[Michael P]

Probably, just like he means "uniformly applying long-standing policy" when he wrote "breaking a promise".

[LawTalkingGuy]

They rescinded pre-approvals and a memo. That’s promise breaking. And everyone who isn’t an asshole recognizes that.

[Michael P]

A normal memo is not a promise, and anyone who isn't an idiot recognizes that. I can't speak specifically to "pre-approvals" because you are only spewing talking points.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You can’t speak to it because it makes you look like an asshole. And honestly I’d rather be an idiot than an asshole. People like idiots. No one likes assholes.

[Michael P]

I can't speak to it because "pre-approval" could mean either a promise or a non-promise, and you provide neither citations nor any details about the talking points you got from your echo chamber.

[Malika the Maiz]

ap·prove
/əˈpro͞ov/
verb
gerund or present participle: approving
1.officially agree to or accept as satisfactory.

[hobie]

Just as it has been with pro-semitism, looks like "thank you for your service" crowd was just more performative hot air from MAGA. When you realize that this is a cult that hates nearly everything that walks or crawls, then you also realize that when they say something endearing of another it is most likely more cynical bullshit

[Sarcastr0]

Signed memos that promise something are a pretty strong promise where I come from.

Don’t be a worm.

[David Nieporent]

No one likes assholes.

Have you met MAGA?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you ever even think about the shit you are defending?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. He does. Because he’s an asshole who thinks bad things happening to people
is good actually.

[Malika the Maiz]

Punching down is the only exercise some of these people get.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes thank-you.

[Frank Drackman]

You should be in the Military the way you toss around the Acronyms and just Ass-ume everyone knows what you're talking about. (In Med Screw-el if you used an Acronym you had to expect to get called on whether you could say what it stood for, and no Synonyms, the actual words, it's how I still remember what HTLV-3 stood for (what they called the HIV before it became the HIV)
For the great unwashed (remember when everyone had an Uncle Davy who used to be in the Navy?, me, my Dad and my Daughters are the only ones who served/serve on his side (Umm, we don't really talk about Mom's German side of the families service much)
"TERA" stands for "Toxic Exposure Related Activities" which can range from inhaling bodies burning in Falluja, or the Oil Well Fires in Kuwait (Yours Truly), Agent Orange at U-tapao Thailand (my Dad) or the "Round Up" they use on Military Golf Courses (Daughters)
You're required to have a "TERA" to claim conditions under the PACT Act ("Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxins" they should have just called it the "Bo Biden Act" because he's the only reason Glioblastoma's got included)
In reality, 99% of Veterans participated in a "TERA" (see "Round Up") when I see a Vet who didn't, it's usually a mistake (Yes, the VA occasionally makes mistakes)
Wow, that went on for awhile, so here's an Acronym I won't translate

"AMF"

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Of course this made up persona is making up his service like he made up the idea that he writes like a confused third grader trying to write like Trump because he’s left handed, or he’s ESL, or whatever fantasy he peddled. Even the Army’s members have some basic English skills and aren’t bizarrely disordered.

[Michael P]

You can tell bot traffic is from a talking-points blast because it has no substance to back up the talking points.

[Malika the Maiz]

Says Mikie P, who has literally made no posts over a sentence in his three comments in this discussion.

Every accusation is a confession with trolls.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The talking point is: this is an asshole move that only assholes support. And it only weakens the anti-trans movement because most people aren’t this big of assholes.

[SRG2]

The cultists are incapable of independent thought, so they assume the rest of us are likewise incapable. Hence if Trump said, "the earth is flat!" and a couple of rationals posted here that it isn't, cultists like Michael P will say that the rationals will have been instructed to say that, oh, and btw the earth is flat.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Here’s a good way to test who is right. Go find a friend (if you have them) who isn’t very political but does think that trans women shouldn’t compete in girls sports. Tell him why you think it is actually a good thing to decide not to let trans service members with 15-18 years of honorable service take early retirement based solely on their trans status. Especially after some were already pre-approved. I’d wager he will think you’re being an asshole.

[Sarcastr0]

What isn’t backed up?

Or do you need remedial training on what cruelty and assholishness entail?

[Frank Drackman]

The Military medically retires peoples all the time, for Diabetes, Herniated Discs, Brain Tumors, surprised a Shyster like Hunter didn't try to claim his Cocaine Addiction (ICD10 F14.20)
Of course what's considered "Medically Disqualifying" is flexible, when they're looking for Suckers, I mean "Volunteers" to go die in Iraq/Afghanistan/You-Crane, they suddenly get a lot more lenient.

Frank

[apedad]

"Shyster"?!?

You becoming friends with LexAquilia now?

[Frank Drackman]

More like honoring the Late Great William G. Buckley, who when asked about his use of big words explained that he used the word that was appropriate for the situation,
and from my Funk & Wagners (No Typo, in addition to his Composing and White Supremacy, Richard Wagner was a Logophile)
Shy·ster
[ˈSHīstər]
noun
informal
derogatory
a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous, fraudulent, or deceptive methods in business:
"an ambulance-chasing shyster" · "this guy makes used-car salesmen and shyster real-estate agents look good"

Frank "in addition to being a confirmed Logophile, Richard Wagner was a practicing Homo Sapiens"

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought it was Funk & Wagnalls.

[Frank Drackman]

Common mistake,
it's like how there was "Bruce Lee" but also "Bruce Li"

[Mr. Bumble]

Your mistake I assume since it is Funk & Wagnall's.

[Frank Drackman]

You taking your counsel from Queenie? Guys, it's a Joke, I was here (Soprano's Reference)
no, there's not a "Funk & Wagner's" Dictionary
but there ought to be

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

MAGAn can’t write basic sentences.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would it have a libretto?

[Bwaaah]

Mr. Bumble: "I thought it was Funk & Wagnalls."

I'm disappointed in you. That there was some center-of-the-plate lexicology from Frank Drackman. How the hell'd you get caught up like that?

[Mr. Bumble]

Nobody bats 1000.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, yes, technically a perfect Batting Average would be "1"
and we really should say "In 1941 Ted Williams set the record for highest Regular Season Batting Average (you want to get really anal it's "Batting Percentage" by hitting "Point Four Zero Six")
I remember guys like you when I used to pitch.
I'd drill them in the ribs (and no matter how intentional, if you smiled and yelled "My Bad!!" they couldn't do anything)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

I'd lose the bat the next time I faced you.. My bad.

[not guilty]

Who is William G. Buckley??

The segregationist author, columnist and host of Firing Line was William Frank Buckley Jr. (born William Francis Buckley).

[hobie]

It must be tough for Frankie. He's a Jew, but he's also MAGA, which means he secretly hates himself

[Malika the Maiz]

“He's a Jew”

The character he plays here is, maybe.

[Frank Drackman]

So what religion is your character?

[Malika the Maiz]

Only sad, disordered people play a character here. Join a community theater club if you’re into that, weirdo.

[Frank Drackman]

I get it, revealing your religion is like David Blaine telling how he throws up Frogs,
oh wait, he just swallows them, then throws them back up,
sort of like you do with (redacted)
and Yes, I know you're going to insult my Mom (if I'm a "Character" wouldn't she be also? she might even be a 1928 Porter)
So who's really the strange one here? The guy playing a "Character" (I remember when I was a kid People said Howard Hughes was dead and people were pretending to be him, and then whammo! (HT (Dr) Bill Cosby) turned out he was alive the whole time)
Me, for playing a "Character" (I look at it more like Larry David or Jerry Seinfeld playing themselves) or you for being obsessed with telling a "Character" he's a "Character" (you'll have to take a number for that one)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think you’re David Blaine? Join a community theater club if you’re into that, weirdo.

[hobie]

Trump: "I don't even wait. And when you're a star [a dehumanized gay person], they [MAGA] let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe call them "Rubes" or "Hillbillies"?? Steal their Valor?

[Kazinski]

How many people.who got separated with between 15 and 18 years service for failing to get a covis vaccination got pensions?

I doubt they did either. Policy is policy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They could have taken the vaccination (like they did with every other vaccination up until 2021). They had a choice. Trans people don’t stop being trans.

[Michael P]

Look at the denialist un-personing detransitioners. I have been told that denying people exist is even more of an asshole move than denying their identity is what they claim.

[LawTalkingGuy]

lol you’re such a fucking asshole it’s incredible.

[Michael P]

The strength and depth of your arguments is breathtaking.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This isn’t an argument. This is me telling you you’re an asshole.

[Michael P]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. You don't actually have an argument, you just have name-calling and talking points that you faithfully parrot.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don’t want to have an argument! I want you to know that you are an asshole because you have asshole opinions!

[Michael P]

You don't want to have an argument because you just want to call people assholes for pointing out the errors in your earlier arguments.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Nah. That not why I’m calling you an asshole. It’s because you have consistently shown you have incredibly shitty and mean-spirited values that are in tension with living in a healthy society. AKA being an asshole. You can’t debate or argue your way out of that problem. (And being a “debate me” bro is also kind of an asshole trait).

You just have to accept that your values suck and are shitty and that’s why people think you’re an asshole. Sucks to suck.

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s linked to a news article that claims: An Air Force spokesperson said a subset of applications were “prematurely approved.”

You’re just weasel wording about whether it was a pre-approval that was a promise or one that was not.

If that happened it’s bound to have created legitimate expectations and it’s a jerk move to tell someone they got their retirement and then rescind it.

[Swede425]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You are on FIRE this morning!
Anywho, Trannies made choices, too.
And those choices are getting them kicked out of the service, where they don't belong.
A major course correction is happening because stupid people made horrible decisions regarding severely mentally ill people being able to serve in the military. If that makes you mad, I really don't care.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“If that makes you mad, I really don't care.”

Yeah. Because you’re an obvious asshole. Most people don’t think like you.

[Swede425]

I disagree.
I think most people DO think like me.
Now what?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well, polling says you’re wrong. But even if most people agree with you that doesn’t mean they agree with being a dick to them on their way out. Which would be even more unpopular.

Read your post to someone who isn’t very online. They’ll think you’re a huge asshole lol.

[Swede425]

Polling says your mom services sailors.
Why would you imagine, random internet guy/girl, that I would care what you think of me? In what way could that possibly be important to me? Or anybody else, for that matter?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Assholes tend not to care what other people think of them, yes.

[Swede425]

Let me guess: another year I'm not getting a Christmas card from you?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Let me guess: another year I'm not getting a Christmas card from you?"

LTG runs into a lot of assholes it seems.

Raylan Givens : You run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. You run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Only here. Everyone else I meet and interact with typically ranges from delightful to tolerable in some way. Often the people I think of as assholes IRL are people that my peers think of the same way. And I still find it easy enough to get along with them.

This place just has a concentration of them. And it tends to be people who think they deserve at least one safe space from being called out on their shitiness since they don’t actually voice these views out in the world. (You certainly don’t Bob. You absolutely keep your views to yourself, otherwise you’d be unemployable).

[Malika the Maiz]

It made Swede uncomfortable enough that guys saw him naked in the barracks showers, the idea one might be trans would cause him PTSD (or rather, more of it).

[Swede425]

Did you just assume my gender and sexual orientation?
How unenlightened.
I get why you'd think mentally ill people should serve in the military, being a kindred spirit and all, but in the end it just doesn't make sense. And that's a real struggle for you and others like you.
Again, too bad, don't care.

[Malika the Maiz]

I’ve always assumed you’re a sissy boy. You know, like your wife and kids do. As for mentally ill people in the military, you voted for the current Commander in Chief, I’d be more worried about that. Kindred spirits indeed.

[Swede425]

That's not very nice, random internet guy/girl/it!
What about my feelings? You know, the thing you care about the most.

[Malika the Maiz]

You’ve got me mistaken with someone else, probably yourself, given you’re full of feelings and I don’t care about yours. Every accusation is a confession with these people.

[Swede425]

Oh, c'mon! Don't be like that!
I know you care about me.
You've thought about me, naked, in the barracks shower, with other men. And I'm a sissy boy, to boot?
Oh, yeah, you've DEFINITELY thought about me.
Every accusation a confession indeed.

[Malika the Maiz]

I know you confuse thoughts and feelings but I was just explaining your trauma. Where did the bad trans person touch you, Swede?

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie gonna Queenie, I mean "Project"
and I haven't heard "Sissy Boy" since this Slice of Life from Circa 2005
SCENE: Pre Op Holding Area in a busy Community Hospital, Patients laying in stretchers, Nurses and Doctors milling about, we find Dr. Drackman and Jack, Anesthesiologists talking at the front desk over Coffee
Dr. Drackman: Oh hey Jack, I see your son didn't go out for Baseball this year, Rotator Cuff?

Jack (another Gas Passer): Umm, No, he's gotten more into the Arts and Poetry, I call him "my little Poet", you understand?

Biff the Surgeon (Leering at us as he can't start his case until Jack and I finish our Colloquy) I understand! He's a "Sissy Boy"!

END SCENE

[Malika the Maiz]

“I haven't heard "Sissy Boy" since”

You last talked to your parents?

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently they do, sometimes. Quite often, even. Especially if you hold off on subjecting them to irreversible hormone treatments or surgery, in order to preclude a normal life.

It's an interesting claim: Somebody can go for half a lifetime as perfectly normal, and tomorrow declare they're 'trans', and we have to accept it. But we also have to accept that, once 'trans', always 'trans'. It's a one-way thing, evidently.

I think this probably derives from the idea that people lie about being straight, or just fool themselves, but somehow, inexplicably, never lie or are mistaken about being 'trans'. A position adopted because the trans movement really needs to deny that 'trans' claims are ever pretext, or (ahem) transitory.

There's similar 'reasoning' going on concerning being 'gay', of course: Somebody can spend half their life straight, suddenly decide they're 'gay', and you have to take it seriously, but being gay MUST be immutable, or else you can't justify banning conversion therapy.

So we arrive at the position that people only ever lie about being straight, or only straight people can change to something else, nobody EVER goes from non-straight to straight.

Man, the irrational contortions these people go through to justify their demands. It's amazing.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think you misunderstand some things. The idea is that sexuality is an orientation, natural inclinations. A person might resist or try to ignore their inclinations and for a good while the state can get involved and throw its full force behind punishing and castigating their inclinations and incentivize people resisting them.

The idea of “gay rights” is that people shouldn’t feel like they have to be talked into or out of being gay or straight, either inclination is perfectly fine, if a person wants to change up, that’s their choice, shouldn’t be pressure either way. The conversion therapy bans I know of are for minors, and there really is no equivalent for converting kids to be gay despite the fantasies of Mom’s for Liberty.

[Frank Drackman]

I understand! You're a "Sissy Boy"!!

[Malika the Maiz]

Sent your message to your dad to the wrong place.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Homosexuality is completely different from transexuality (or whatever they want to call it), because it involves a person concluding (although they could be mistaken, I suppose) that they happen to be attracted to other people of the same sex. If done honestly, it is simply a recognition of reality (albeit a subjective interpretation thereof).

Trans are more like MAGAts: what matters most to them is realizing the "reality" they really, really want to be true. It's not, "I'm attracted to men/women/other", it's, "I'm a pony! And you all have to treat me like one or you're evil." The milquetoast left falls for this trick every time...

[Mr. Bumble]

"Trans" is thrown around and conflated like "migrant". Are they legal migrants or illegal aliens?
Are they transexual (that is had all of the surgery to mimic the sex they believe themselves to be) or are they transvestites (maybe with a boob job?).

[shawn_dude]

It's exactly like homosexuality. I've heard your arguments about "reality" applied to homosexuals since the 80s when I started paying attention to such things. And, to make things more obviously wrong, you're arguing against a strawman (strawperson?). Trans persons aren't denying the reality of their sex. No one denies that reality that is willing to take hormones, go through surgery, and live with the fear of being arrested for using a public restroom.

Whether it was coincidence or cause and effect, Americans didn't start taking the "born this way" explanation for homosexuality seriously until the "gay brains" study came out in the 90s. Maybe we'll have a similar moment for trans people where people realize that sex, gender, and sexual attraction aren't always aligned to match the majority. If it's possible to be born with both sexual organs and it's possible to be born with attraction for the same sex, then who's to say gender expression isn't flexible also?

But I think the real bottom line here is that people should feel free, in the US especially, to live their life as they see fit without the government trying to force them to conform to something so trivial as meeting traditional gender roles. If you cannot handle a fem boy or a butch lesbian, that's your problem to figure out.

[William of Brooklyn]

Conforming to something "so trivial as traditional gender roles" is at the very heart of transgenderism. How would they telegraph to the world that they had "transitioned" if Caitlyn Jenner did not wear a dress and make-up, or if Chaz Bono didn't wear a suit and tie? It's 100% performative, and can only exist if people are watching and invested in those very notions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Accepting one's sexual attraction is an acceptance of reality. One cannot "accept" a gender identity in the same way, because it is a projection: it comes from within. Someone who was born one sex cannot "feel" like someone born another sex--how could they possibly know what that "feels" like?

We agree that government has no business forcing anyone to conform to "traditional gender roles", but I will never agree to special rights for anyone.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. The idea of gender identity as defined by academics isn't a coherent concept.

Most people identify as men or women because they know that they are male or female. A small minority know that they are one sex, but have an ideation that they really should have been the other sex.

The two ways of forming an identity don't have anything in common, and don't place different individuals in the same category in any meaningful sense.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yeah, like Trump knows he lost the 2020 election, but has an ideation that the election was "rigged", so he didn't lose at all...

[bernard11]

There's similar 'reasoning' going on concerning being 'gay', of course: Somebody can spend half their life straight, suddenly decide they're 'gay', and you have to take it seriously, but being gay MUST be immutable, or else you can't justify banning conversion therapy.

So we arrive at the position that people only ever lie about being straight, or only straight people can change to something else, nobody EVER goes from non-straight to straight.

Man, the irrational contortions these people go through to justify their demands. It's amazing.

What a ridiculous comment. Talk about irrational contortions.

Let's see, for many, many years, centuries, even, being known to be gay risked making one's life seriously unpleasant, up to and including being denied housing and employment, extorted, beaten, imprisoned, and even killed.

Is it then surprising that people who were gay, or thought they might be, would conceal that in the interests of self-preservation? No. The only person surprised is you.

As time passed, and attitudes and laws changed, some no doubt felt it was now safe enough to come out, or to explore the question.

But straight people had no need to conceal their sexuality. There was nothing to be gained, and much to be lost by pretending to be gay.

Similar logic of course applies to transexuality.

So it is perfectly obvious that what happens is that "people only ever lie about being straight, or only straight people can change to something else, nobody EVER goes from non-straight to straight."

That is, it is perfectly obvious to anyone who is not a fanatic bigot who revels in his own outer-space logic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trans people don’t stop being trans."

That is not true. We have examples of people who "de-transitioned".

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

True. Like the vast majority of youth who experience gender dysphoria in early life. (Most end up realizing they are just gay.)

[shawn_dude]

I'm calling B.S. on that. Evidence?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Here's one:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-024-02817-5?cjdata=MXxZfDB8WXww&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_BOOKS_ECOM_GL_PBOK_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100045542&CJEVENT=1bf8095c754c11f0838602080a18b8fc

Admittedly, that doesn't mention the gay part (which I should have written as, "most who do not grow out of it end up realizing they are just gay"). Other studies have mentioned that aspect. Surely, this is not news to you?

[Magister]

Unlike the authors of that paper, you seem to think gender non-contentedness is the same as gender dysphoria.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And the original claim was about trans people. Trans relates to gender identity, which is not the same as gender non-contentedness or gender dysphoria.

[Magister]

So doubly irrelevant? OK.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Perhaps. None of that changes the fact that there are plenty of people who detransition.

[Magister]

It does address the existence of evidence for that assertion.

[shawn_dude]

Pointing to the ex-gays to prove that homosexuality can be changed?

I thought we'd moved beyond that.

True Blood had a great story arc about that.

[not guilty]

How many "ex-gays" are there, and how does than compare to the number of ex-straights?

Would you want your daughter to marry a self-proclaimed "ex-gay" man? If so, wouldn't you worry that he is going out to get loads of hot monkey buttsex on the downlow?

[Kazinski]

So we had a situation where the last two administrations have decided to separate a class of servicemen for ostensibly medical reasons, but actually because they just don't think the suspect class fits in to their vision of the military culture.

And neither group gets special pension treatment.

Ok, so what?

[shawn_dude]

Where "ostensibly medical reasons" alludes to refusing a direct order to take a vaccine, like they'd already taken numerous time prior in their military career. (The first set at basic training is *brutal*... and delivered assembly line fashion using freaking AIR GUNS.)

Refusing a lawful order != medical reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

So here we have a whattabout in an attempt to deflect away from an indefensible action by the administration.

The 'so what?' kind of gives the game away - this is a game to Kaz. There are no real people here, just Internet defending Trump.

[hobie]

If the servicemen got booted it is because they disobeyed command orders to get vaccinated. And if they are too fragile to get a shot like all their fellow servicemen did, then they shouldn't be in the military in the first place

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Last time I checked (okay, I never really checked), a servicemember could get court-martialed for getting a sunburn. How is not getting a vaccination different?

[Frank Drackman]

Love using this....
""Could" is doing a lot of work there"
Yes, there were Apocryphal stories of Lance Corporal Schmuckatelli getting Court Martialed for "Destruction of Government Property" for 1: Getting a Sunburn, 2: Intentionally doing too many Pushups and getting Rhabdomyolysis,
I think, like with the Apocrypha, it's things that never happened.

and the refusing to get a shot gets prosecuted under
UCMJ Article 92, "Violate or fail to obey any lawful general order or regulation"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

The people in question are being retired because they're medically unfit to serve, which ordinarily would indeed entitle them to a regular early retirement, except that they chose to become medically unfit.

[Malika the Maiz]

Did you know the DOD officially designates Asperger’s as a disqualifying condition?

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/09/06/army-investigating-how-19-year-old-diagnosed-autism-was-recruited.html#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20initial%20Army,because%20he%20has%20Aspergers%20Syndrome.

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie, you pontificating on Medical Ish-yews is like me telling someone how to suck a (Redacted)
Why don't you let me stick to Medical, and you stick to sucking (Redacted)?

First of all, it's pronounced "Ass-Burgers", and nearly 50% of Physicians have it.
I'm sorry, that was unfair
More like 90% (except for me of course)
and Fighter Pilots? find me one that doesn't have it.
Did you know the game last week in which the Reds and Braves scored 16 runs in the 8th Inning was the highest total for runs by 2 teams in an inning since the Brookly (Trolly) Dodgers and the Boston Red Stockings scored 17 in 1873?
Interesting, isn't it?

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

The physician and military part is faked but the Asperger’s tracks.

[Frank Drackman]

Like you and the (Redacted) sucking (tracking I mean, not faking, and how exactly would you "fake" (Redacted) sucking?

[Malika the Maiz]

That loss of Medicaid benefits due to failure to meet work requirements really done a number on our weirdo internet busker.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, I sort of miss the Very (Wrong) Reverend Arthur Kirtland, I'm beginning to think maybe he IS Jerry Sandusky (like you do, Arthur/Jerry really took my Ball Busting seriously)

[Malika the Maiz]

No one takes your character seriously, we’re laughing at you, like the QAnon shaman. MAGAns are often weird, sad people.

[Frank Drackman]

No one? Don't be so hard on yourself, you certainly do, at least you spend a considerable number of Keystrokes replying to my inanities, (PS, "45/47/48?" plans on taxing Keystrokes, might want to work on being a bit more succinct)
Seriously, I'm taking up so much space in that Cranium, you'll need to knock out a few walls just to keep your basic bodily functions going (oh wow, that sounds like a threat, I was trying to show off my knowledge of Neuroanatomy, please don't knock out any walls in your head on my account)
It's like when I pitched in High Screw-el (Yes, I'm making that up too) there were some batters you'd intentionally throw a few obvious Balls to, just to prolong their humiliation.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Like David Notimportant, Queenie's megalomania has her/he/it
believing they speak for everyone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Didn't need to find out because I also have flat feet, 20/450 vision, and hypermobility syndrome, along side the Aspergers. Oh, and short enough fingers to have trouble with anything larger than a 9mm single stack semi-auto.

It probably fits together into some obscure syndrome.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Don't know about Asperger's, but flat feet are not disqualifying unless the condition is in some way debilitating. Likewise hypermobility syndrome. 10/450 vision if correctable to something like 20/50 is also not generally disqualifying. My vision, uncorrected, has been 20/600 since I was about 15 and I served as an officer in a combat arms (no big deal). For various specialties, better uncorrected vision is required. If short fingers was a disqualification, Trump would not have had to fake bone spurs, so I don't buy that as disqualifying. In all the Army physicals I endured, in none were the lengths of my fingers ever measured.

I don't think I've ever encountered an adult whose fingers were too short to operate something like a Beretta 92FS. As a result of a rather strange accident (long after my military service ended), my forefinger on my right hand is about an inch shorter than it used to be. I have no trouble with a 92FS nor with a full-sized 1911 45ACP. My hands are probably smaller than average.

edit to add something I forgot. This is a tune by Phil Ochs probably from 1965. Brett's litany of disqualifying characteristics reminded me of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T9MHFldX1E&ab_channel=PhilOchs-Topic

[not guilty]

"Didn't need to find out because I also have flat feet, 20/450 vision, and hypermobility syndrome, along side the Aspergers. Oh, and short enough fingers to have trouble with anything larger than a 9mm single stack semi-auto."

I have long figured that Brett was compensating for something.

"The people in question are being retired because they're medically unfit to serve, which ordinarily would indeed entitle them to a regular early retirement, except that they chose to become medically unfit."

When did you choose to become cisgender, Brett? Did you try both presentations before deciding?

[Sarcastr0]

Chose to become mentally unfit!

What a novel take on mental health you pulled out of your ass.

Fuck you and your anger at the idea people might not have your personal experience Brett.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Look who misunderstood Brett and is now super mad!
He wasn't implying that people choose to be mentally ill.
They did, however, choose to act on that mental illness and made physical changes to themselves which made them medically unfit.
Now fuck you and your anger AND your inability to understand what other people said.
Am I doing that right?

[bernard11]

So now your expertise extends to issues of sexual identity. Are you and Joe in some kind of contest?

[shawn_dude]

This is a load of B.S. You're saying that combat veterans with 15-18 years of service are suddenly "medically unfit to serve" after having served successfully for years in the most difficult of circumstances as trans soldiers? After sharing foxholes and dragging wounded soldiers from harm for years in the Middle East wars, they are, only now, magically unfit at a time when right-wing conservatives in power are using LGBT Americans as scapegoats?

Do you believe your own bullshit?

[bernard11]

Some questions, Brett.

When did they become "medically unfit?" Was it before or after they entered the service?

Were they made aware that they would be considered unfit?

What is the nature of their "unfitness," and how did it manifest itself during their years of service? What is it, exactly, that they are unable to do?

[Commenter_XY]

Ask Pete Hegseth...He promulgated the policy.

[bernard11]

Why should I ask that incompetent fool?

Brett is the one who made the assertion, and I'd like to ask him more about it.

Because, see, if you knowingly let a transsexual enlist then you shouldn't come back 15 years later and tell them they are "mentally unfit" and won't get their pension. (Well, you can, I guess, but only if you're a giant fucking asshole, and you also have to be a gfa to support and defend that.)

And if someone transitions, with approval, while already in the service, and you pull the same stunt you're an even bigger fa.

Years ago:

Airman: Will it affect my career if I transition?

Air Force official: No.

Today:

Air Force official: Because you are "medically unfit" you are being discharged, and will lose your pension.

Does anyone seriously support that? Especially when there is a fifteen year record that shows no signs of unfitness?

I guess some do. Slimeballs.

[apedad]

Gov. Healey signs off on raise for criminal defense attorneys — but crisis continues

Touted as their largest pay raise in 20 years, a long-awaited boost in hourly wages for bar advocate attorneys was signed into law by Gov. Maura Healey this week.

But in the days following, courtrooms remain in crisis, as the lawyers press on with their work stoppage — now into its third month.

The majority of the roughly 2,600 bar advocates across Massachusetts stopped taking on new criminal cases since Memorial Day, as they pushed legislators for an hourly rate increase to $100. They argued that neighboring states like New Hampshire and Maine have lower costs of living with wages well over $100 an hour, and that their work in Massachusetts has become unsustainable and unattractive to new attorneys.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/gov-healey-signs-off-on-raise-for-criminal-defense-attorneys-but-crisis-continues/ar-AA1K2pIQ?ocid=BingNewsSerp

I had noted this a couple of weeks ago.

C'mon Massachusetts!

You should be a leader in protecting people's rights!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe they shouldn't have spent so much feeding and housing illegal aliens.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts protects rights by setting defendants free if no lawyer is available.

[Frank Drackman]

What about the rights of the people the freed defendants murder(ed)? Funny that Ali-Bama and "M-I, Crooked Letter Crooked Letter I, Crooked Letter Crooked Letter, I, Hump Back Hump Back I"(how I learned to spell "Mississippi") are able to provide Pubic Defenders while highly taxed MA can't

Frank

[shawn_dude]

Because there's nothing in the Constitution about a speedy trial, amirite?!

Or are you making a wry comment on the impact of a free market in legal employment that drives lawyers to better paying jobs?

[Malika the Maiz]

The Royal New Zealand Air Force evacuated three people from a U.S. research base in Antarctica on Wednesday, conducting a rare and highly dangerous mission through volatile weather and 24-hour darkness to rescue the individuals.

The evacuation at McMurdo Station, the United States’ main outpost in Antarctica, was requested by the National Science Foundation after a staff member required urgent medical care and was unable to be treated there, the air force said in a statement. Two other people who needed medical care were also taken on the flight.

The station, which typically hosts around 200 people during the winter months, has a small medical staff on site, similar to an urgent care facility, the National Science Foundation said in a statement. The foundation is not equipped, however, to handle major emergencies. It did not provide details about the medical conditions that led to the evacuations.

On Tuesday afternoon, the air force sent a C-130J Hercules, a military transport aircraft, from Christchurch, New Zealand, to Antarctica. The crew, equipped with night vision goggles, flew about 2,400 miles, roughly the distance from Los Angeles to New York City, in difficult weather conditions and complete darkness, Andy Scott, an air commodore, said in the statement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/06/world/new-zealand-us-antarctic-base-rescue.html

[Ska]

Reminds me of several of the serial episodes of X-files, or the season 1 episode with the tapeworms in the arctic research station.

[Malika the Maiz]

Or Who Goes There?

[Ska]

Yes, the episode with the tapeworms is a retelling of Who Goes There? and The Thing. Good call.

[Frank Drackman]

Or Ceti Alpha V's only remaining indigenous life form.

[Martinned]

Isn't it great having allies?

[Bob from Ohio]

You think the US air force couldn't have done it if needed? Its no the first medical emergency there.

It runs both ways, they flew a US made plane*, and the night vision goggles were invented by RCA, a US company.

*also flown by the Dutch Air Force

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Does that mean you're against it?

[Bob from Ohio]

Against what?

Getting one of our satrapies to do our work? Of course not.

Dutch having C130s? Its like breasts on a man but its ok. They probably can't fly.

[shawn_dude]

Yes, I believe the USAF could not have done that as speedily or as professionally as the NZAF. The reason is that the NZAF are more experienced with this type of rescue and they were far, far closer and could respond faster. So if speed to the site is part of the "it" you wonder if the USAF could have done, then no, USAF could not reach them as quickly.

WTF does it matter if the plane was US or EU made? just because NZ bought military equipment from the largest arms seller on the planet doesn't mean diddly. And, in case you didn't know, the Hercules C-130 uses Rolls Royce engines so this is really the UK's win, right? right? There was probably Taiwanese and South Korean computer chips involved too. So maybe this is Taiwan's win?

MAGA chest-thumping silliness is getting tiresome.

[SRG2]

When someone says "Nuremberg", the GOP thinks, "laws!" and the Democrats think "trials!"

[LawTalkingGuy]

Hey now. There is common ground. The democrats think “rally” (derogatory) and the GOP also thinks “rally” (complimentary).

[John F. Carr]

A peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan is imminent. As part of the deal the "Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity" will be built through Armenia to connect Turkey and Azerbaijan. The US will get "leasing rights to develop the corridor."

This sounds like good news. I hope this is good news.

https://apnews.com/article/armenia-azerbaijan-trump-peace-deal-e3a9b50ce1062bf9ef2fdd3f64ed54f6

[Frank Drackman]

That's like telling us Hulk Hogan died when we didn't even know he was sick

[hobie]

I hope so too. But as Azerbaijan is a Putin puppet state, who knows what favorable contours Trump will negotiate. If it wasn't for Trump's antipathy towards most peoples on earth (as the Nobel committee is well aware of), he could have gotten the Peace Prize

[tylertusta]

But as Azerbaijan is a Putin puppet state

That was the case up until the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the grinding away of the Russian army. Russia has now demonstrated that it is incapable of projecting power into the region to prop up the old order. Countries are looking for new friends, and the opportunity has resulting in major diplomatic major coups for countries like Turkey and the United States.

Similar realignments may be underway in Kazakhstan and Georgia.

[Martinned]

I assume they will also both nominate Trump for a Nobel Prize? And maybe put a big statue of him in their central squares? (The Azeris might make it a gold statue, but I don't think Armenia has that kind of money.)

[John F. Carr]

Nominate away. The road to Oslo passes through five people nominated by liberal Norwegians. I think he will be left griping about the great injustice of not winning the prize and saying it's not that great a prize anyway.

It's not that great a prize.

[ducksalad]

It's not that great a prize.

Yeah, you'd be on a list with some very unsavory characters. For a while the algorithm was be murderously evil, and then get the prize for backing off a little.

OTOH maybe it's worth spending $1M and a few ounces of gold for a medal to get some warmonger to ease up slightly.

[shawn_dude]

He desperately wants it if only to be on par with Obama.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity"

LOL Unlike our Dutch friend, people are learning how to deal with Trump for mutual benefit.

[John F. Carr]

Reportedly the name was proposed by Armenia and not by Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

It would be good to see Azerbaijan join the Abraham Accords agreement. That is a possibility, and a welcome one.

[Nelson]

The Abraham Accords are a joke. They have done exactly nothing substantive, but Trump (and his sycophants) sure likes to pretend it was the best thing ever.

[David Nieporent]

They ended wars… between countries that weren't at war!

[Nelson]

And prevented wars … that weren’t going to happen.

[Commenter_XY]

It has enabled Israel to have meaningful r'ships with each of its Accord partners in diplomatic and security issues. Those r'ships mattered very greatly when Israel struck Iran, arab response was muted. Nobody is ending their economic and security cooperation as a result of the gaza war.

Not exactly a joke.

[Nelson]

“ It has enabled Israel to have meaningful r'ships with each of its Accord partners in diplomatic and security issues”

Really? I know it’s the narrative from people who want to pretend the Abraham Accords weren’t just another hot-air exercise of the Donald Trump Substance-Free Policy Circus, but what substantive, real thing has resulted from the Abraham Accords? There certainly hasn’t been any pushback against the Palestinians, save for a few mealy-mouthed press releases that basically say, “Uh, can’t you be nicer?”.

“ Those r'ships mattered very greatly when Israel struck Iran, arab response was muted”

You mean the countries that already had strained or contentious relationships (which is all three signatories, plus the non-signatory, Sudan) with Iran didn’t complain when they were attacked? And your takeaway was that it was the Abraham Accords was that it was the agreement, not the preexisting relationship between Iran and their neighbors, that caused it? Really?

Hamas’ leadership is living free in Dubai, in the UAE (one of the signatories). Is that the UAE helping Israel?

What, exactly, have the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan (who isn’t actually a signatory) done?

“ Nobody is ending their economic and security cooperation as a result of the gaza war.”

Probably because every single one of them is, at best, an adversary of Iran. They would have acted exactly the same way without the Abraham Accords because that’s what their attitude it towards Iran, Hamas’ parent organization.

You are falsely attributing the already-existing opposition to Iran to the Abraham Accords. Again, can you point to anything that has changed?

[David Nieporent]

The response to the Israeli strike on Iran was muted because they all hate and fear Iran, not because of some piece of paper they signed with Israel.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

AIPAC is on the war path against MTG for not putting Israel first. Do you think Mossad will assassinate her?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably not, some A-rab might though.

[apedad]

“Bring It On”: Marjorie Taylor Greene Goes Scorched Earth on AIPAC

“If AIPAC wants to come after me and accuse me of betraying my American values—AIPAC, you know what? You can bring it on. I am totally ready for this, and this is a fight that I will fight and I will give it my all, and I can guarantee you, you’re gonna lose because America is fed up,” Greene told OAN Thursday.

“They’re fed up to here with funding foreign wars, funding foreign causes, funding foreign countries for foreign reasons that have nothing to do with Americans while Americans work their ass off every day and pay their taxes and come home and they’re living paycheck to paycheck and their credit cards are maxed out,” she continued. “I don’t care anymore. I honestly don’t care, so I’ll burn this bridge to the ground and I will let the flames light the way ’cause this is a fight that needs to happen.”

https://newrepublic.com/post/198923/marjorie-taylor-greene-aipac

Politics in the Trump era is definitely . . . unique? engrossing?

[Kazinski]

MTG is an idiot no matter what side of an issue she is on.

Besides she is now distancing herself from the GOP and Trump

https://time.com/7307443/marjorie-taylor-greene-republican-party/

“I don’t know what the hell happened with the Republican Party,” Greene told the Daily Mail in an interview published over the weekend. “But I’ll tell you one thing, the course that it’s on, I don’t want to have anything to do with it, and I, I just don’t care anymore.”

Its difficult being the one true conservative.

[LexAquilia]

She's sick of the Israel worship, just like many Americans are getting.

[Nelson]

No, just the KKK-loving, white supremacist wing of the far right wing. So almost nobody.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

There are several Blue states with millions of Republicans but House districts so gerrymandered they have no representation in Congress.

Why is the TX redistricting a threat to Democracy, while the other is not?

[Malika the Maiz]

The 119th Congress will have 12 all-Republican state delegations (Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming) with seven states represented only by Democrats (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island).

https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2024/11/25/number-of-single-party-state-congressional-delegations-reaches-70-year-high/

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

So what youre saying is that neither side has moral ground to stand on and today's manufactured hysteria over TC is just performative?

[Nelson]

No, the problem is the mid-census gerrymandering, which tales a disgusting bipartisan activity and supercharges it into almost-constant partisan warfare.

Gerrymandering is bad. Doing it whenever partisans want, for whatever reason partisans want, is much, much worse.

[Mr. Bumble]

Five of the twelve Republican states have only one Congressperson. Also, I believe you left out Vermont on the Dem side.

[Nelson]

I agree that you can’t really count the states with just one House member. I live in one of those states.

We had a split at the Senate level and our only House member was a Republican until our R senator retired. Then the Tea Party primaried our R Congressman (who would have won the seat by a mile) with a complete lunatic (but a Tea Party lunatic is redundant).

The lunatic beat the moderate Republican, then got destroyed in the primary. The Tea Party candidate for our Congress seat got wrecked, too, and a two-to-one GOP delegation became all D. And it hasn’t changed since then.

The GOP keeps running crazy people (the last gubernatorial candidate was sane and a great candidate, but the one before was an openly proud QAnon supporter). Hopefully our GOP has figured out that wingnuts can’t win, but I’m not confident given the national GOP.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, give Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming an extra Representative and maybe they'll elect a Black Guy.

[jb]

"There are several Blue states with millions of Republicans but House districts so gerrymandered they have no representation in Congress."

Oh look, you're back. And just as wrong as ever. There's zero states that meet that definition.

[shawn_dude]

California has 9 GOP congresspersons.
Wyoming has 1. It also has the honor of being the "most Republican" state by percentage of registered voters. (80+%)

California has 5.4 million registered Republicans representing roughly 25% of voters.
Wyoming has 227,881 registered Republicans.

With California having 52 members in the House, 43 of them are Democrats and 9 are Republican. Most of the Republicans represent the sparsely populated Northern part of the state and the less-populated inland deserts.

[Frank Drackman]

Rumor is "45/47 48?" is offering Cuomo an Ambassador position (Missionary) if he drops his Mayoral cam-pain, now if can just get Sliwa into an FBI spot, leaving Adams against (the) Zoran Ramadan-a-ding-dong in the General.
Could work

Frank

[Ska]

It would remove splitting the vote, but Adams manages to be less popular than Deblasio (worst mayor of my lifetime though Dinkins could have been too). Not sure how that would decrease Mamdani's chances.

Not sure if the Guardian Angels' recent legal problem affects Sliwa's vanity campaign.

[Frank Drackman]

Like running from the Grizzly, Adams doesn't have to be "Popular" just more popular than the Ugandan born Moose-lum.
And being a Brother that the (DemoKKKratic) "Man" is trying to put in Jail is, as the Tech Bro's say
"a "Feature", not a Bug"

Frank

[ThePublius]

"Not sure if the Guardian Angels' recent legal problem affects Sliwa's vanity campaign."

What problem is that?

[Ska]

I thought I read somewhere there were new fraud charges against them for falsely claiming to be a charity after having their charitable status revoked. Looking for it now it seems like it was more of a concern troll by the Daily News.

Considering the guy runs every time and achieves little, I wasn't really placing a lot of value on it. Just wondering if it was going to give him less time to campaign and turn off the small sliver of voters who'd even consider pulling for him.

[ThePublius]

I actually like Curtis, and know him from way back when he founded the "Rock Brigade" in the Fordham neighborhood in the Bronx. He has done much good. I think he's somewhat inept politically, 'though, but I would vote for him if I still lived there.

[jb]

Splitting the vote is much less of a problem with ranked choice voting, especially if the more conservative candidates cross endorse each other. Of course, Adams and Cuomo are both egomaniacs so the cross endorsement part seems very unlikely.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump has lost a significant amount of support and his weighing in on the New York Mayoral Election is more likely to help Zohran Mamdani than hurt him. I suspect that the attention given to Mamdani is helping him more than hurting him. I also suspect Mamdani is helped by give aways to the wealthy in the OBBB and recent drop in support for the immigration secret police.

[Bob from Ohio]

"more likely to help Zohran Mamdani than hurt him."

Maybe that is what he wants. Marxist as a prominent Dem is a gift to the GOP

[shawn_dude]

LOL "Marxist."

Hard to take someone seriously that can't even distinguish between a garden variety socialist (a la Bernie Sanders) and a Marxist.

[Brett Bellmore]

If garden variety socialists honeymoon in the USSR, or advocate for the abolition of private property and seizing the means of production, (Like Mamdami.) I'd have to say that there isn't a lot of breathing space between garden variety socialists and Marxists.

Well, actually there isn't, at this point. Garden variety socialists are just Marxists who understand that Marx has a bad name in America.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/07/politics/pastor-doug-wilson-christian-domination-trump

CNN has a hit piece on Doug Wilson/Christian Nationalism.
I think its going to create more fans of his brand and of Christian Nationalism.

The thing that really strikes me is of the Big Three, Christian Nationalism is the only ideology that purports to make change lawfully and morally.

Muslims conquer through violence and subjugation. See UK and much of Europe.

Jews, being Jews, manifest change via subversion. See all of White civilization.

Why is the first to be feared, while the others are ignored (Moslem conquest) or tolerated (Jew worship by White world leaders)?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Pilates Minimus,
Ironically one of the Tenets of the Christian Nationalists, is that they're the "Original Jews" and today's Jews aren't. (How can I explain it to the Rubes? (HT Hobiestank)
It's like how these towns in Bum-fuck Arkan-saw will have a (horrible) "Ray's BBQ"
then the Mexicans move in, open an "Original Ray's BBQ" that's much better and puts Ray out of business.
So you Christian Nationalists are Ray, and we're the Mexicans putting you out of business.
But hey, the Tribe can use more Indians, and could you pay your Nut? don't want to have to tax you.

Frank

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

So you're doing whats got Jews kicked out of 119 communities (and counting *fingers crossed*)?

[Frank Drackman]

Improving your miserable Goyim's lot in life? I guess. I don't ask patients,
"So, any history of Malignant Hyperthermia, Drug Allergies, Heart Disease, Cancer, Diabetes, White Surpremacy?"
and Stereotypes become Stereotypes for a reason, Gas Passers? lotta big noses, dots on foreheads, epicanthic folds while your typical Orthopod is Colonel Hans Landa

Frank

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Frank, stop with your Stolen Jewry routine. You're only half Jewish and that half is all in your big Jew nose.

[hobie]

Frankie, you play with MAGA dogs, you'gonna get MAGA fleas like this one. Not too late to migrate over to where all the Jews really are, Frankie: Lib Town!

[Frank Drackman]

You left out "Self Hating"
and if there's anything I'm not, it's "Self Hating"
I'm all about the "Self Love" (Man!)
I think "Pink" said it better (Jewish BTW)
"Keep your drink, just give me the money
It's just you and your hand tonight"

Frank

[bernard11]

And remember what they say about orthopods (told to me by one):

To be an orthopedic surgeon you have to be strong as an ox, and twice as smart.

[Frank Drackman]

Rocking out to some "Roxette" this morning (get it" "Rocking Out/Roxette")
not one of their Albums (that's later) but
from the "Pretty Woman" Soundtrack, and who in the "Conspiracy" didn't see "Pretty Woman"??
Yeah right, it was only the 3rd highest grossing Movie of 1990, and Disney's highest grossing "R" rated movie until "Deadpool & Wolverine" (is that a movie or a WWE Tag Team??)
Nobody else has the Soundtrack?? (on Cassette, it was 1990)
Yeah right, I'm the only one who bought all 7,000,000 copies worldwide (I get around)
and don't even get me started with Wilson Phillips

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

Roxette had 4 US No 1 records as compared to only 1 for ABBA.

[Frank Drackman]

Borrowing from Johnny Carson,
"I did not know that!"
Now I'm trying to guess which 1 it was ("Dancing Queen"?)
Love how in the 70's/80's all the cool kids loved to bust on ABBA, (OK, me included)
While secretly rocking out to "Waterloo" (Like with "99 Luftballons" the German version is better even if you can't understand it)

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

("Dancing Queen"?)

Correct. Only one week as well.

I like ABBA but Roxette was clearly better IMHO.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon (Man!)
Join the "Joyride"! (No Homo)
well maybe a little Homo.
and ended up listening to Roxette today going through my Desert Storm Souvenir collection (no body parts (dammit)
got the usual, a bunch of Iraqi 25 Dinar Bills (with Sadaam's Smiling Face) a poster of the Kuwait Emir I pulled from a wall in Kuwait City, Iraqi Gas Mask, Kuwaiti Sand in a Urinalysis Cup, and.........
a fistful of Bootleg Cassettes I picked up from some (Arab) Pedlar in Haifa, December 1990 , lets see, "Pretty Woman Soundtrack" "Dirty Dancing Soundtrack" "Wilson Phillips" (Sorry Carnie!) "Cher/Heart of Stone", and a Paula Abdul Mix Tape (in truth the best of the lot)

Frank

[shawn_dude]

ABBA won the largest music contest on the planet and has been a running theme in movies, videos, and television since their inception. If you showed a random American (over the age of 40) a photo of both bands and asked them to name them, Roxette would lose. ABBA sold over 400 million albums and Roxette about 80 million. ABBA had worldwide sales while Roxette was largely limited to the US, Latin America, and Europe.

I prefer Roxette, but I own an ABBA album (Super Trouper) and couldn't recognize Roxette if they popped out of a limo 10 feet from me. The only non-subjective measure that Roxette beats ABBA over is the number of US #1s. Yet ABBA and Roxette tied for total songs in the top 100 at 14. But if we're going for foreign bands with the most #1s, the BeeGees win 9 to 4 over Roxette. While I've had many more hours rollerskating as a teen to the BeeGees, I'd still prefer Roxette.

[John F. Carr]

This week the Trump administration appealed the order requiring funding of Planned Parenthood contrary to section 71113 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Document 85 at the link below is the memorandum of law in support of a stay pending appeal.

I am on the government's side here. As a matter of policy, the ban should be repealed. As a matter of constitutional law, it is permissible, or at least beyond the power of the court to set aside.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70721678/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-inc-v-kennedy/

[tylertusta]

Judge Talwani's reasoning has stretched the limits of credulity, and it's obvious that she isn't impartial and has taken on to unofficially defend Planned Parenthood as co-counsel.

The government wants this case out of her hands on the strongest basis possible. Besides, the law doesn't kick in until later this year so there's no immediate need to appeal her batshit rulings.

[shawn_dude]

Irony: commenting on a judge "stretch[ing] the limits of credulity" while backslapping a President for his unending streak of illegal executive orders.

[tylertusta]

The DC Circuit just vacated Judge Boasberg contempt order in the AEA case:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26045027/aea.pdf

Judge Boasberg previously hinted that he would take other action such as reporting to various bar organizations if the DC Circuit did not agree with him on contempt.

[Michael P]

Boasberg's actions are what the left calls lawless and contempt (in the general rather than technical sense) of judicial authority, right?

[tylertusta]

Whenever a panel grants a writ of mandamus then that's a strong hint that the lower court judge overstepped his or her bounds.

[hobie]

It certainly does imply as much

[David Nieporent]

Rao has already demonstrated (in the Flynn case) that she doesn’t understand how mandamus works.

[Bob from Ohio]

But you do.

So arrogant!

[Commenter_XY]

How is it that you are not sitting on an Appellate Court?! You need to be there to 'splain it to her!

[David Nieporent]

The Appellate Court did have to explain it to her in that c case!

[Commenter_XY]

I eagerly await your nomination to the bench. 😉

[Estragon]

The DC circuit sat on this for months until after Bove was confirmed. Same with DOJIG sitting on multiple whistleblower complaints.

Bove was rewarded with a lifetime appointment for sending 200+ men to a concentration camp. If there is a bottom, we’re not there yet

[Frank Drackman]

1: Technically most US Prisons could be considered "Concentration Camps" as the term applies to "Concentrating" a certain umm, "Population" in a confined area, hence the "Camp"
or "Konzentrationslager" in the original German
or from the American Heritage Dictionary
"A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group which the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable."[

2: What the Krauts had were "Extermination Camps" (Vernichtungslager) where certain umm "Populations" were duh, "Exterminated"
So 200 Criminals sent to suffer Inhumane Punishments?? (I'd call Cocktails with Congressman Van Horrible "Inhumane Punishment)
Not exactly Anne Frank dying of Typhus at Bergen-Belsen,
and when 6,000,000 Illegals have been Exterminated give me a call,
that's right "Call me" (Polydor/Chrysalis 1980)

Frank

[Life of Brian]

The DC circuit sat on this for months until after Bove was confirmed.

You're complaining that they waited to vacate the contempt order hanging over his head until after he was confirmed? I don't get it.

[Estragon]

If they vacate this before the confirmation it’s back in the news. It’s not rocket science.

[Frank Drackman]

Why is "Rocket Science" considered to be the epitome of a complicated subject?
It's just basic Newtonian Physics* with some Integral and Differential Calculus, same Science we use to determine the total weight of feed required to end up with enough Chicken for a million Chick Fil-A Spicy Chicken sandwiches (Auburn, B.S. Poultry Science 1983)
You want something complicated? How many possible ways can a batter legally get to First Base?

*OK Smarties, yes, Relativity plays a role, but with the fastest object man has come up with to date (The Parker Solar Probe, whic at its closest approach to the Sun in 2024, its speed relative to the Sun was 690,000 km/h (430,000 mph) or 191 km/s (118.7 mi/s), which is 0.064% the speed of light.
Plug "0.064 in for "c"" and it doesn't change Newtons' equations much. (HT Shania Twain)

Frank

[tylertusta]

Four opinions (the per curiam plus two concurrences and a dissent) with a total of 110 pages.

I think that justifies the months spent on writing this.

If it was just a two sentence, single-page order then that'd be different.

[Kazinski]

That's what is so ridiculous about Estragon's point. The court asked for supplemental briefs after the El Salvador US Venezuela prisoner exchange, a week before Bove was confirmed, and gave them a just a few days for both briefs and responses, then issued their opinion just barely a week after Bove was confirmed.

And then Estragon admits it wouldn't have changed any votes in the Senate, which the court shouldn't be considering anyway.

[Estragon]

That’s right, they asked for supplemental briefs. Why don’t you point me to your best example of where the subsequent transfer to Venezuela features in the core reasoning of this opinion regarding contempt of district court orders issued months before. I will generously grant you it is mentioned in passing.

[Life of Brian]

Still not tracking your theory on why him having contempt charges hanging over his head would somehow be less red-meat newsworthy and potentially harmful to his confirmation than those charges having been vacated.

[Estragon]

Because it would bring focus back onto Bove’s actual conduct and make clear that they were trying to establish facts on the ground (lifetime appointment) before there could be any accountability. Same with IG sitting on whistleblowers who came forward before confirmation (there were several). Where do you think Bar complaints are going now that he’s a judge? Same with civil suits filed by people like the hairdresser, who was sexually abused in CECOT.

[Life of Brian]

Because it would bring focus back onto Bove’s actual conduct

So your theory is that the media stops red-meat reporting on a person just because the person files an appeal? That's... interesting.

[Estragon]

My theory is that Rao and Kastas and DOJ IG slow walked all of this until after Bove was confirmed to a lifetime position as a reward. A reward courtesy of the GOP caucus and Trump administration for sending hundreds of men to a torture camp in El Salvador. I have said it three times now.

[Life of Brian]

I can't believe you actually wrote this after Kazinski kindly directed you to the case schedule that puts the final nail in the coffin of your vibez-and-feelz conspiracy theory.

Well, I guess I can believe it since you also responded to that post itself and had the chutzpah to flatly ignore that part of it.

I think we're done here.

[Estragon]

Who decides the briefing schedule? They had this since mid-March.

Yes, truly, there was no earthly way to discern when Bove’s hearing was coming up. It’s not like he met with Senators for weeks beforehand. And how long before that was the nomination trial balloon in the press? Believe what you want to believe. The whole thing is monstrous. I’m done with you too.

[Estragon]

Did you know there were actually three Bove whistleblowers? And that DOJIG “lost” one of the complaints that came in before the nomination, on May 2?

https://whistlebloweraid.org/new-whistleblower-evidence-on-emil-bove-languishes-at-the-doj-for-months/

[Life of Brian]

Who decides the briefing schedule? They had this since mid-March.

OK, now you can do some actual work to try to demonstrate that 5 months from soup to nuts is anything but lickety-split for a D.C. Circuit appeal, particularly one where no party requested an expedited schedule.

Oh, and in that analysis you'll also need to factor in the quite unusual extra briefing cycle, occasioned by Plaintiffs–Appellees' repeated efforts to shoehorn your almighty "whistleblower" sideshow into the appeal.

Good luck.

[Estragon]

Why would I do that? You started out by saying you didn’t understand why the timing of this decision mattered at all. Does it?

I was correct in explaining to you why: because now— today— it’s back in the news. Every article describing this decision goes through some recitation of the story about how these 200 people got shipped off to El Salvador and abused.

Kaz, above, comes close to getting it right when he says:

“Maybe you with hindsight can tell us the precise optimal moment they should have issued the opinion in order to derail Bove's nomination?”

I can’t tell you that but I can tell you the optimal moment to aid in Bove’s nomination. After it’s over! And even with that assist he barely scraped by.

If you want to say, oh it’s business as usual, or oh it’s a coincidence, be my guest. It is also— I’m sure— a coincidence that DOJ IG “lost” a whistleblower complaint delivered in early May until the day of the nomination. A buried complaint alleging a lot of contempt for the lifetime office he was appointed to, btw.

Bove was aided both by the timing of this decision and DOJ IG burying dirt. That those two things (as well as all the hard work put in by the commentariat here today!) were in service of rewarding one of the worst people in public life today and someone categorically unfit to be a federal judge is really the icing on this particularly sorry cake.

[Estragon]

“Nomination”

I meant confirmation, of course.

[Life of Brian]

Why would I do that?

That's probably the most self-aware thing you've said so far. I think the realization is setting in that if you actually were to look into objective facts of the time it takes cases to work their way through an appeal and realize exactly how quickly this one did actually proceed under the circumstances, it would pull the rug right out of the middle of your feverish conspiracy theory.

Best just go on flapping your arms and hyperventilating instead.

[Estragon]

I explained above why I don’t find the supplemental briefing dispositive.

It’s speculation backed up by a lot of facts. It’s not as if Rao and Kastas are blank slates here either. If you can’t grok why someone might be particularly exercised by Bove getting a federal judgeship, well, let’s just say I don’t actually believe that. But you’re the one who has to sleep at night.

That you’re all “nothing the see here” is very much overdetermined.

Until next time….

[Kazinski]

I can understand, and enjoy, why you are butthurt about Bove being confirmed, what is hard for me to fathom why you are blaming the Court of Appeals.

As for the supplemental brief, one very important fact that changed is Venezuela now has custody, so not only is Boasberg requiring the Government to negotiate with a foreign government to purge the contempt, now he is trying to make them negotiate with a government that they don't even recognize.

[Estragon]

Isn’t that about curing the contempt? And isn’t the government’s position that they can’t be compelled to negotiate with ANY foreign government— recognized or not? Seems tangential to whether there was contempt of the order not to deplane. I am assuming that is your best example.

[Kazinski]

How many votes would it change in the Senate?

But in any case they didn't sit on it, the parties were still filing response briefs as late as Jul 28th, the day before Bove was confirmed.

Here is the court's order from Jul 21 requesting supplemental briefs, and an aggressive schedule for filing the briefs and responses.

"PER CURIAM ORDER [2126551] filed, on the court’s own motion, that the appellants file a supplemental brief, not exceeding 2,500 words, by July 23, 2025, addressing whether and how these factual developments affect their position in this case. It is FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the appellees file a response to the supplemental brief, not exceeding 2,500 words, by July 28, 2025. "

That was a week before Bove was confirmed, when they would have no idea about the Senate's schedule.

[Estragon]

“How many votes would it change in the Senate?”

If you’re asking me to speculate as to what depths of nihilistic depravity the GOP senate caucus (minus Collins and Murkowski) would be willing to go, my answer is probably the same as yours: there is no bottom. None. None votes would change.

That is different than saying there wouldn’t be more of a political price to pay down the road if the extent of Bove’s conduct was more well known and discussed ex ante.

Bove ordered these men deplaned so they could be tortured and raped at CECOT. There are both international and domestic law implications for that conduct. And instead of facing any kind of accountability for that, he was rewarded. As I said: it’s a new low but I fear we are nowhere near the bottom.

[Kazinski]

Bove is in DOJ he doesn't give orders to DHS, he tells them their legal options, and they make the decisions.

It is too bad Bove is in the 3rd circuit, ideally he would be in the DC circuit reviewing Boasberg's opinions.

[Estragon]

It’s in the whistleblower (one of three, btw) materials submitted by Erez Ruveni:

From: "Roth, Yaakov M (CIV)"
Date: March 16, 2025 at 2:26:48 PM EDT
To: "Flentje, August (CIV)"
Cc: "Reuveni, Erez R. (CIV)" , "Ensign, Drew C
(CTV)"
Subject: Advice to DHS I have been told by ODAG that the principal associate deputy attorney general advised DHS last night that the deplaning of the flights that had departed US airspace prior the court's minute order was permissible under the law and the
court's order.

[Kazinski]

How is that different than what I said:
"he tells them their legal options, and they make the decisions."

VS

"advised DHS last night that the deplaning of the flights that had departed US airspace prior the court's minute order was permissible under the law and the court's order."

[Estragon]

Bove gave the go-ahead, and so DHS did it. Is this some weird formalistic argument that it was really Kristi Noem or Joe Kent or something?

This man was rewarded by the GOP for this horrendous conduct. It is shameful.

[Kazinski]

By Boasberg's own order it would be whatever official made the final decision, not whoever gave them legal advice about their options.

So it would not be Bove held in criminal contempt, according to Boasberg's order.

See page 3 of the opinion.

[Estragon]

Can you be more specific? Page 3 of which opinion?

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe it did not happen like you posit = Bove ordered these men deplaned so they could be tortured and raped at CECOT. There are both international and domestic law implications for that conduct.

Where is Bove's deplaning order for the purpose of getting these illegal alien gangbangers tortured and raped? Did they have drinks with a Senator?

[Estragon]

“Did they have drinks with a Senator?”

Are you seriously cribbing material from Drackman?

See above.

[Kazinski]

In the facts section of the main per curium opinion Adler linked to in his post about it.

The opinion was unanimous as to the question of denying the appeal, and then Katsas and Rao granted the request for mandamus. All three judges wrote separately after the unsigned main opinion.

"The court also stated that, if the government opts not to purge, it
must identify the Executive Branch officials who, aware of the
court’s TRO, made the decision not to halt the transfer of class members out of U.S. custody on March 15 and 16, 2025."

That would exclude Bove who according to the whistleblower gave them his legal opinion about what actions would be "permissible". And of course Katsas agreed with Bove's assessment that by the terms of the TRO that advice was plausible.

[not guilty]

Attorney disciplinary complaints apply to judges as well for conduct undertaken before taking the bench. Even if a federal judge were disbarred in the jurisdiction where he was licensed, his removal from the bench could be only by impeachment and conviction.

I surmise that Emil Bove is licensed in New York. I don't know whether he is licensed elsewhere.

[Bob from Ohio]

"DC circuit sat on this for months until after Bove was confirmed"

Conspiracy thinking, Captain Ahab

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, it needs evidence.

[David Nieporent]

At least — unlike the Russiagate hoax hoax — it's factually true. The DC Circuit did in fact sit on it for months, and released this after Bove was confirmed.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, its not "factually true".

"sit on it" = Slang for waiting or hoarding/holding onto something until the right time to sell it or let it go [wikipedia]

Estrogen is saying they intentionally held on it for a bad reason instead of the usual delay in getting appellate opinions released

[Kazinski]

See my response above, or merely look at the schedule on Court listener, and maybe you can point to the gap in the proceedings when they were sitting on it.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69905252/jgg-v-donald-trump/

Maybe you with hindsight can tell us the precise optimal moment they should have issued the opinion in order to derail Bove's nomination?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, the precise optimal moment would have been 5 minutes after the appeal, when they could have easily and correctly ruled that they had no jurisdiction.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, well, well....How about that. The judiciary is starting to police their own. Took long enough.

[EllaWilson]

boasburg was bitch-slapped again.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals says Judge Boasberg was way out of line by holding the Trump administration in contempt, despite SCOTUS ruling he didn’t have jurisdiction in the case

It also ordered him to cease and desist issuing his contempts.

Why are liberals this stupid?
Isn't it time for you to be professional?

Shouldn't judges honor their oaths?

[William of Brooklyn]

It's fascinating to me that those above who are arguing (incorrectly) that States are not sovereigns because the federal government has express powers and competencies above States nonetheless argue that there is such a thing as "international law," despite the absence of those very same things. Or are they arguing (again wrongly, but at least consistently) that the Unites States is also *not* sovereign, because there exist treaties and tribunals?

[Frank Drackman]

William, that was an inciteful, probing, and intelligent comment.
How did you get in here???
In Goodfella's I'd be Johnny No-Nose sending you and Karen a bottle of Champagne

Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

International law isn't.

But it is an agreement, and most non-rogue states have agreed to most of it. Enforcement is another matter, of course.

[Michael P]

I thought about making the same point -- that sources of international law, or treaties generally, are examples of sovereign states agreeing to constraints on their sovereignty.

But I decided eurotrash would weasel out of the comparison because, unlike international law and treaties, the US federal system actually works.

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/Project_Veritas/status/1953628752887656710

Texts, notes, and emails EXPOSE
@FultonCountyDA
Fani Willis and Bill Barr worked together on the RICO case targeting
@RealDonaldTrump

Now we know why Barr squashed all those investigations into all that 2020 election fraud...

[David Nieporent]

LOL. The "Texts, notes, and emails" do not even mention Bill Barr.

[LexAquilia]

Are you for real? it's right there highlighted. what the living fuck. whats' wrong with Democrats.

The second tweet in the series has a video of a real live human being whistleblower naming Barr.

https://x.com/Project_Veritas/status/1953574256769741057

you people are unreal. No wonder even after all the countless videos and other evidence of the 2020 Big Steal you clowns still don't believe it happened.

[Nelson]

Project Veritas has the credibility of Kim Jong Un.

That’s not fair to Kim Jong Un. He’s got a lot more credibility.

[David Nieporent]

Are you for real? it's right there highlighted. what the living fuck. whats' wrong with Democrats.

They say "Barr," not "Bill Barr," you half-wit.

The second tweet in the series has a video of a real live human being whistleblower naming Barr.

A random kook! I could claim to be a whistleblower and say that Fani Willis was working with Tom Brady!

[Nelson]

The standard for “whistleblower” varies greatly in MAGAWorld depending on if they like what the person is saying or not.

[Estragon]

I have to be honest I find this hysterical. Please please mess with Bill Barr as much as possible.

He was (and is) by far the most competent cabinet hire the Trumpists ever made. He is a professional cover-up artist who knows his way around DC and cleaned up a lot of messes in Trump’s first term. He makes Bondi, Patel, Ratcliffe and Gabbard look like a bunch of bumbling idiots. MAGAs should worship the guy.

Two observations:

1) that Barr is now out of favor really shows what skills the ultra magas value.

2) as I have said around here before— movements like this always eventually start to consume their own. This should be food for thought for people like EV and Steve Calabresi.

[Kazinski]

Saw a thread on Xitter that describes what we spend a lot of time here in the open threads:

"Nobody can control random, insane, posters. But many liberals are desperate to cover for them using the ignore/deny/deflect playbook rather than just saying "yeah, that's dumb" and move on."

He goes on to say that gives the impression the craziest of the progressives have more influence than they actually do because liberals are reluctant to distance themselves.

https://x.com/petespiliakos/status/1953827740227981565?t=gctjpAb_80HSB1VOcv9_HQ&s=09

[David Nieporent]

"Nobody can control random, insane, posters. But many liberals are desperate to cover for them using the ignore/deny/deflect playbook rather than just saying "yeah, that's dumb" and move on."

He goes on to say that gives the impression the craziest of the progressives have more influence than they actually do because liberals are reluctant to distance themselves.

Whereas it's the 95% of MAGA who are random and insane who make the other 5% look bad.

[Kazinski]

Yeah but at least we have no compunction about calling out the 5% for being sane.

[ThePublius]

That's just ridiculous name calling, David.

[Nelson]

More accurate reporting. Roughly 95% of MAGA believe the 2020 election was stolen. And that wrecking the Capitol was justified.

So yes, they’re delusional.

[David Nieporent]

And that Russian involvement in the election was a hoax.

[Mr. Bumble]

Other than your vibes, got a cite for that number?

[Nelson]

It’s a rough estimate. Perhaps it’s only 95% of the “extreme conservatism is the same as libertarian” crowd that posts here.

[Jmaie]

Can't remember the show, but a comedian being interviewed objected to being tarred due to living in Orlando. He asked, "Is it really fair to judge me based on only 90% of Floridians..."

[hobie]

I thought you were describing MAGA posts here until you used 'progressives'

[jb]

I'm confused. AFAICT, normal liberals say "that's dumb, let's move on" pretty frequently.

In the recent Sydney Sweeney jeans commercial "controversy". Over multiple open threads, various Republicans tried to bring it up and there wasn't a single left-leaning commenter who took the bait. And contrary to the X thread, this is the only NYT opinion piece about the controversy, and it is pretty clearly in the "this is dumb, let's move on" category:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/29/opinion/sydney-sweeney-american-eagle-ad.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ck8.Df6X.kL2CiOLlIvf8&smid=nytcore-android-share

[ThePublius]

"The reaction of the far left to the infamous Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad campaign was, to say the least, absurd. And I think leftists know it, too. Because they’re no[w] desperately trying to rewrite history and claim they were never bothered by the ad in the first place, and the whole thing was a right-wing fabrication."

The Left Is Trying to Gaslight You About the Sydney Sweeney Ad Outrage, but Here Are the Receipts

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/08/08/the-nyt-is-trying-to-memory-hole-the-lefts-sydney-sweeney-meltdown-n4942535

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, pjmedia with their unbiased take on what the left thinks.

We all saw who cared around here and who didn't.

[Nelson]

PJ Media? Really? Why don’t you link to someone who reads tarot cards or talks to ghosts. You know, people who are more credible than PJ Media.

Next you’ll link to redstate.com as a neutral news source.

[ThePublius]

And you guys think of the NY Times as a neutral news source? Ha, ha, ha!

[Nelson]

The NYT, while having an editorial slant, follows accepted journalistic practices. PJMedia has never even pretended to follow standard journalistic practices.

They are a straight-up hack site that pretends that facts that they don’t like don’t exist, make intentional and gross mischaracterizations of statements and motives, and use loaded words on a regular basis.

The far right wants someone to tell them that their most extreme and irrational beliefs are actually true and PJMedia, ZeroHedge, and Project Veritas give them what they want.

[ThePublius]

"They are a straight-up hack site that pretends that facts that they don’t like don’t exist, make intentional and gross mischaracterizations of statements and motives, and use loaded words on a regular basis."

You could just as well say this about the NY Times and Washington Post. NYT has a long history of publishing B.S. and strongly advocating for the Democratic party and progressive movement, even to the extent of making up stuff.

BTW, I subscribe to both, not so much to figure out the truth but to see what all sides are saying.

When Republicans screw up, that's the story. When Democrats screw up, Republican's reaction is the story.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you Chris Cuomo posting under a pseudonym?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/07/chris-cuomo-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-deepfake

[ThePublius]

Sure, attack the source, not the content. Typical of you lot.

"For example, far-left outlet Salon’s weekend editor CK Smith linked the tagline of Sweeney’s ad to "eugenics movements."

"Eugenics movements in the U.S. often promoted the idea of ‘good genes’ to encourage reproduction among White, able-bodied people while justifying the forced sterilization of others. Critics say those ideas still show up in modern advertising and influencer culture, often unexamined," Smith wrote last month."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/social-media-ablaze-new-beyonce-jeans-ad-drops-sydney-sweeney-controversy

[Nelson]

“ Sure, attack the source, not the content.”

If you link a source that isn’t credible, yes. You don’t debate partisan propaganda. You point out that it’s partisan propaganda and move on. Pointing out that it is a partisan hack site is absolutely the only rational approach.

Do you have an actually credible source, or is it just far right silo sites that make these claims?

I would point out that Salon, while more credible than PjMedia or Project Veritas or ZeroHedge, doesn’t surpass The National Enquirer for credibility.

So the least stupid idiot in the room.

[jb]

So... there were two articles actually criticizing the ads. That seems plausible. And then the overwhelming reaction was: this is dumb, let's move on.

Even the PJ article acknowledges that those articles were about the peak of interest in ads. So I'm having a hard time squaring this with the notion that folks on the left amplify dumb ideas like this.

[David Nieporent]

1) Nothing says professional journalism like ending a story with "At PJ Media, we expose these Orwellian rewrites that the mainstream media won’t touch. Join PJ Media VIP today and get 60% off with the code FIGHT. Don’t wait — stand with the truth and fight back against the left’s lies."

2) The article is incredibly weak sauce for the claim. The bottom line is that a few randos online got hysterical about it. (I will assume for the sake of argument that these people were sincere. Crazy, but sincere.) A few liberal sites did mildly note that this was happening. And a few right wing sites then blew it up into a major thing, even though it was just a few randos.

[ThePublius]

So, a "few randos" including Salon and Vanity Fair? Give me a break.

[Sarcastr0]

Salon’s weekend editor, lol.

You STILL want to make this happen.

At this point it's just making you look like a desperate fool.

[ThePublius]

Anyone here following the Sig P320 controversy? Besides the Air Force, more and more PD's are dropping it. One of my clubs just banned it from club grounds.

Sig seems to have dug in their heels on this. It could be the beginning of the end for them.

In case you're not following it, the short summary is that there are multiple cases of "uncommanded discharges" of these, i.e., going off by themselves. At least one dead and many injured.

[Kazinski]

That's one reason I carry a revolver, that and a .357 has more stopping power than anything short of .50 caliber, and I primarily carry for bears and Mountain lions.

Its ridiculous the number of law enforcement accidental discharges using semiautomatics.

https://www.police1.com/officer-safety/articles/rise-in-unintended-discharge-shootings-during-police-trainings-raises-safety-questions-AGTKVfmzkzAcq8oU/

[ThePublius]

I often carry a revolver, which I believe is inherently more safe than any semi-auto; although, the PPK is very safe. It's these striker fired pistols that are unsafe, in my opinion. My EDC is a S&W Chief Special in .38 Special.

.357 Magnum is a great round, I have a couple of Ruger Blackhawks and a Marlin 1894 carbine chambered for that. But I bet my .44 Magnum has quite a bit more stopping power than your .357! A Ruger Blackhawk in ,44 Magnum with a 6" barrel is my preferred defense against bears.

[Kazinski]

Yeah no doubt .44 mag > .357 mag, I was thinking in terms of a 1911 shooting .45acp.

In terms of firepower in a small package a Taurus 605 is half the weight of a Ruger Blackhawk, not to mention have the price.

[ThePublius]

Interesting, you think .357 Magnum has more stopping power than .45ACP? I don't know, but I'm skeptical, 'though it might be one of those unending debates.

[Kazinski]

I just know what I have read:

"Most load data indicates that the .45 hits with about 350 ft.-lbs. of energy while the .357 Mag. produces something closer to 500 ft.-lbs."

On the other hand there is no doubt 8 rounds are better than 5.

[Frank Drackman]

My S&W Model 29 certainly has "Stopping" Power
It's so painful on the ears, even with hearing protection I stopped shooting it.
I do shoot 44 Special in it, (Like Dirty Hairy did in "Magnum Force")

Frank

[ThePublius]

"I do shoot 44 Special in it, (Like Dirty Hairy did in "Magnum Force")"

Oh, really? Did they mention that in the movie?

I shot .44 Spl, too, until I got the dies to reload .44 Magnum, and I can load reduced loads now, and not foul up the cylinder.

Yea, factory .44 Magnum loads - four is my limit, until my hand aches.

[Frank Drackman]

Had to check IMDB but in the Firing Range Scene one of the Uniform Cops asks Harry what round he shoots in his Model 29, Harry responds
"It's a light Special. This size gun it gives you better control and less recoil than a .357 Magnum with wadcutters."

[ThePublius]

Interesting. 'Though a .357 Magnum shooting wadcutters is usually very mild, a target load. I shoot .38Spl wadcutters in my .357 Magnums on occasion. Near zero recoil, great accuracy.

[ThePublius]

I just read the article, it really doesn't have anything to do with semi-autos. It could just have well been revolvers.

[hobie]

When I was in the annual NRA gun show in Houston (which happened to be about two weeks after the Uvalde massacre) I noticed a lot of the bullet peddlers had these acrylic/gel blocks showing that their bullets - when entering the human body - also exploded creating large cavities. I found it amusing to think that you hayseeds aren't just about 'stopping power' but rather exploding the person from the inside...which these bullet/hand grenades seem to provide

[ThePublius]

That's what stopping power is all about, a huge wound cavity. BTW, they don't "explode," they expand.

[hobie]

It's pretty cool, ain't it?

[ThePublius]

No, it's not. I don't want to shoot anyone, but my instinct for self preservation supersedes that.

There are a lot of bad guys out there. I've had guns stuck in my face three times in my life. I thank God I wasn't shot. (Yea, I worked at a liquor store in the Bronx when I was in college, so there's that.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're going to condemn all semi-automatics because one model from one manufacturer might have problems?

[ThePublius]

Update:

Arrest made in fatal shooting of airman that led Air Force command to stop using M18 pistols

Read more at: https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_force/2025-08-08/m18-pistol-air-force-arrest-18702982.html
Source - Stars and Stripes

[Frank Drackman]

Another gun that "Just went off"

[Kazinski]

I was hoping it wouldn't be necessary to discuss the WNBA's green dildo problem, where there have been at least 4 instances of usually green dildos being thrown out on the court during games.

https://slate.com/culture/2025/08/wnba-green-dildo-sex-toy-polymarket-crypto.html

But now Polymarket is offering Green Dildo prop bets. That's very irresponsible, of them. Is it time to outlaw prop betting? Especially prop bets where any one individual can affect the outcome?

[ThePublius]

The gaming industry will regulate itself with regard to prop bets. And, no, outlawing it would just push it underground and fuel organized crime, just as prohibition did.

[Bob from Ohio]

"gaming industry will regulate itself "

LOL Like an addict regulating how much crack he uses.

[ThePublius]

No, what I meant is that they won't take prop bets where they overall lose money, so the manipulation, if any, won't persist

[bernard11]

what I meant is that they won't take prop bets where they overall lose money,

That has shit to do with prop bets. They sensibly won't take any bets where they overall lose money. But since they set the odds, and probably have better information than the average (or slightly above average) bettor I'm guessing they will continue to take prop bets.

I have no data to support this, but I suspect the prop bets mostly appeal to compulsive gamblers, which is not a good thing.

[Kazinski]

Nate Silver said he started online betting because he felt he had an analytical edge, but as soon as he started winning consistently the banned him from their platforms.

If you win consistently, you can't play, if you are around break even they let you stay, and if you are a consistent loser then you are welcome to stay as long as you like.

So at least that way the cheaters will have a limited run.

[bernard11]

I'm not sure I buy that.

Do we know what kinds of bets he was making, or why he thought he had an analytical edge on them. Anyone who thinks he can win overall on prop bets is going to end up with an earful of cider.

But maybe. Silver is good with numbers, but no better than a lot of other people, so if he's right you'd expect to see a lot of people winning, and being barred. But that would kill the bet, since word gets around and there's always another person who figures things out.

[Kazinski]

It wasn't prop betting but sports betting in general.

He did run a well respected football analytical model to rate teams and show playoff percentages for years.

I would think the key to be successful is to be able to spot where you think the general public is being over or under enthusiastic and take advantage of when they skew the odds.

[Frank Drackman]

Nate Silver's so full of shit, as are all of these Prognosticators with their "Locks", if they had an "Anal-lytical Edge" they'd be betting themselves. How he kept any credibility after missing on the 2016 Erection is beyond me.

Frank

[John F. Carr]

They can adjust the odds. When people are betting for or against the same thing this is a straightforward process. Adjust the odds until win and lose cost the same. When the money is all on one side (nobody is betting against a green dildo landing on the court) they'll probably want to limit the amount of money at stake.

[bernard11]

I'm pretty sure they can just take a bet off the boards. Whether they have to let previous bets stand I don't know.

[Ska]

Prop bets make every football game that much more exciting.

Nothing like a parlay requiring QB rush yards, tight end catches, and then something normal like team win to pump up those odds.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is it time to outlaw prop betting? Especially prop bets where any one individual can affect the outcome?"

Yes and yes.

Two Cleveland Guardians [nee Indians] pitchers are accused of cheating involving prop bets. So, I'm watching a tv game this week and Bet365 has a pop up on the screen inviting viewers to do a prop bet on whether a particular player has an rbi. The lack of reflection is incredible.

[ThePublius]

So, cases of cheating are grounds for eliminating betting? There will always be cheating. Maybe we should eliminate the stock market due to insider trading.

[LawTalkingGuy]

In addition to the problems gambling causes for both the sport and the gamblers…the ads and gambling conversation are generally ruining the experience. Had to see/listen to those annoying Charles Barkley FanDuel ads a million times during the NBA playoffs. Football is even worse because betting is constantly plugged on the fantasy apps. And sometimes you start talking to someone about a game and they start talking about their specific bets and how much money they lost instead of the game or the team or the players.

[Nelson]

Do you shake your fist at the neighborhood kids and tell them to stay off your lawn, too?

You don’t like gambling, so you complain about gambling commercials. But the We Buy Any Car commercials are far worse and the 1-877-Kars4Kids commercials would drive a saint to sin. It’s your opinion that makes you claim they are one of the things “ruining the experience”.

Gambling is fun. It’s entertainment. Much like any other activity (exercise, alcohol, church, etc.), some people can’t moderate themselves and become destructive to themselves and/or others. That doesn’t mean it’s bad.

And if someone starts talking about their bets, just say, “I don’t bet on sports”. I had one year where I tried out sports betting (black market, since it was illegal) and it wasn’t my thing. But if someone wants to pay a few hundred bucks to increase their enjoyment of a game, why do you care?

I am a libertarian. Unless someone does something that infringes on my rights, I have no basis for complaining about what they do. Sports betting by someone else doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.

[Kazinski]

Fantasy football is even worse.

[jb]

Indeed. Prop bets seem to be a lot more associated with cheating, and also generally the odds are worse for the consumer/gambler as well. And like LTG notes, they also result in really annoying in-game advertising.

[LexAquilia]

I think it's hilarious. Those horrible humans were out there demanding they "get paid what they deserve".

They're getting all the pay they deserve.

[hobie]

You boys have coarsened the national discourse. So don't act surprised when shit like this happens

[ThePublius]

Are you blaming this on conservatives?

[Kazinski]

We didn't coursen the debate, in fact one of the dildos hit Sophie Cunningham, aka 'MAGA Barbie', which was both dangerous and disrespectful.

[hobie]

Just throw a few ARs like you would with children in congressional Christmas card photos

[BrotherMovesOn]

Prop betting is mostly a case of "one individual can affect the outcome". But I see you probably mean non-players. I agree. Reminds me of when PredictIt was compelled (do not remember exactly how) to stop accepting wagers on things like terroristic events. PredictIt had to do what they were told, as they existed only under grace in the first place.
Disappointing that they had to be told to not to be so irresponsible though.

[Kazinski]

No I don't mean just non players. There was one NBA player banned because he was feeding information to gamblers that were betting on his prop line.

Then throw in that the have prop betting on individual performances in college sports too, and you should be able to see the problem.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/40490035/banned-nba-player-jontay-porter-charged-felony

[BrotherMovesOn]

But they have always have the ability to do that.
I don't see why, well some SEC receiver tips gamblers off that he will have less than five catches in a particular game? I don't see that as plausible. These guys are trying to land contracts not go to prison.

[Kazinski]

And what percentage of college players get drafted?

There are 267 division 1 schools, and only 36 wide receivers were drafted. There is a lot of incentive to take advantage of a situation that may be there last to cash in on their football career.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I don't know. I think you have a very cynical viewpoint of the situation. I think what you posit is not likely.

[BrotherMovesOn]

The scenario which you propose of marginal D1 receivers risking prison time is not plausible.

[ThePublius]

Sheriff of Suffolk County, MA, arrested for extortion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/suffolk-county-sheriff-steven-tompkins-extortion-indictment/

I hope he does serious time.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe wait till he's convicted.

How uncivil of you!

[ThePublius]

Of course. I'm assuming, and hoping, he gets convicted. It's pretty clear he did the crime.

[ducksalad]

$50,000 or we won't approve your license renewal - serious crime.
$16M or we won't approve your merger request - just fine.

The difference is that Sheriff Tompkins didn't laundering it through a lawsuit like the pros. Agree with the cannabis company that he'd sue them for $10M dollars over a cashier being slightly rude, and they'd "settle" for the real amount he wanted, $50K.

[ThePublius]

Whataboutism runs wild on this blog lately. Of course, you'd find a Trump angle to this. Why? Can't you keep it on-topic? Tompkins' actions have absolutely nothing to do with Trump.

[ducksalad]

I'm giving Tompkins advice on how to avoid legal troubles next time.

It's just like telling an entry level golfer to look at a video of Trump's swing as an example of how the experts do it. Would you object to that?

Jeez. So sensitive, Pub.

[John F. Carr]

The marijuana licensing system was designed to be corrupt.

[Kazinski]

I wonder what happened to EpsteinEpsteinEpstein?

52 mentions Wednesday, 9 today, 3 by Hobie, 5 by Malika, and nobody took the bait.

[hobie]

Nothing much to say about it at the moment. The last action was Trumps 'soft pardon' of Maxwell to the fed camp.

[ducksalad]

Not sure why anyone cares about the files being released.

As far as I'm concerned, for the last six continuous years the files have been in the custody of people who would delete, modify, or outright forge content if there was benefit to doing so. For the last six months it's been people who would delete, modify, or forge for the sheer joy of being dishonest.

The person who did the first alterations back in 2019 probably wouldn't recognize the file if it circulated back to them today. It's a giant corrupt game of telephone.

If I were on a jury, regular or grand, I would not consider anything released evidence trustworthy enough to implicate or exonerate anyone, and since we have presumption of innocence that means no legal process against anyone.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There haven't been any new leaks about Epstein, nor has Trump mentioned Epstein, nor has the DoJ implemented any more Epstein cover-ups.

Enjoy the silence. It won't last.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-863659

Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and KSA can all get stuffed. Israel will now hunt down the hamas human animals and kill them.

Israel has lost 900 IDF members in this fight. The fight will now be finished, in accordance with the terms traditionally offered in that region of the world; surrender, or die.

Iran's FM bleats like a wounded sheep, only less useful.

[ThePublius]

Dershowitz was denied service at a pierogi stand on Martha's Vineyard, for his political views, or who he represented, or his support of Israel, I'm not sure. In any event, is this right or just or legal? He says he's suing.

[Sarcastr0]

I think we should take this very seriously and it's great you took the time to bring up this important and dignified issue of law and morality.

[ducksalad]

If it was a regular customer I'd say the pierogi vendor is being a bigot, but has a right to do that. Freedom of association, conscience, etc. The customer should find another pierogi stand or eat something else.

But since it's Dershowitz, I'd say the pierogi vendor is a hero and a pillar of the community.

[ducksalad]

Well, I went and looked up the story. I have an obligation to correct myself when I am wrong.

It turns out this was Dershowitz's second visit, after the pierogi vendor had made it clear he didn't want his business.

That makes Dershowitz an aggressor and a trespasser. IMO the pierogi man would have been fully justified in escalating to physical force if Dershowitz didn't leave instantly when asked.
Dershowitz should be sentenced for a misdemeanor and be liable to the pierogi man for some thousands of dollars.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's assholes all around in this case. But I wish we could settle on one standard: Businesses get to decide who they serve, or businesses having to serve everybody.

[ducksalad]

If it were up to me, the default would be businesses can serve who they want for whatever reason they want, with perhaps one special exception for racial discrimination given the unique history there.

Apart from that, I'd also say if a plaintiff has to go hunting for an offense to their dignity they should get zero damages. After all, they got what they were actually seeking.

[Sarcastr0]

Another political question you don't want to leave up to state and local governments.

It's a sign of the inherent aristocratic entitlement of the right and right adjacent that they insist fairness requires everyone has got to treat them as cool and good while they act like performative assholes.

And Dersh's behavior in not being served really makes this a one-sided asshole situation.

It's also a really trivial one except for the right is I guess seizing on this to push their entitlement to be associated with nonsense.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks Senator Bilbo

[John F. Carr]

As far as I know it is legal in Massachusetts to refuse service for political reasons, including disagreeing with the customer about Israel and Palestine.

[ThePublius]

Google AI result:
"In Massachusetts, it is generally not legal to refuse service to someone based on their political affiliation in public accommodations like restaurants, stores, or other places open to the public. While businesses can refuse service for valid reasons like disruptive behavior, refusing service solely based on political views is considered a form of discrimination, which is prohibited in Massachusetts."

[Frank Drackman]

What if I disagree with a customer for not picking my Cotton anymore? Or for his relatives flying airliners into buildings? Or being related to Adolf Eichmann?

[Nelson]

It isn’t. I have to agree with Publius.

Denying someone a cake because they are gay is illegal. Denying someone a pierogi because of their politics may not be technically illegal, but it is equally wrong.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, Dersh did also explicitly accuse the (Jewish) perogi vendor of being an anti-Zionist, and appeared to agree that he had also accused the vendor of being an antisemite. This was apparently justified by the vendor's having protested at some Jewish cultural event in 2024.

I don't know what was said during the "initial" visit, however (the above comes from the video documenting Dersh's return to confront the vendor some days later).

[BrotherMovesOn]

Alan Dershowitz is a protected class!

[Frank Drackman]

Don't be silly, he's not a Homo, a Spook, or a Towel Head.

[ThePublius]

AOL Announces It's Discontinuing Dial-Up Internet on September 30

Who knew there was still dial-up Internet access? Who knew AOL still existed?

https://twitchy.com/brettt/2025/08/09/aol-announces-its-discontinuing-dial-up-internet-on-september-30-n2417031

[Bwaaah]

Ahhh...The sound of the 56K modem handshake. Each additional sound was a way of saying, "I can do the next faster speed." I started in 1978 with a 300 baud modem. I think I got up to 56K by around 1995.