Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 8.15.2025 12:52 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Follow-Up re: Alleged Discrimination at the University of Oregon Law Review
Hide Comments (580)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
PPI.came out today and if was shockingly high month over month, which I'm told doesn't mean much, but certainly everyone can see if it continues it will mean a lot.
"The Producer Price Index for final demand rose 0.9 percent in July, seasonally adjusted, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Final demand prices were unchanged in June and moved up 0.4 percent in May. (See table A.) On an unadjusted basis, the index for final demand advanced 3.3 percent for the 12 months ended in July, the largest 12-month increase since rising 3.4 percent in February 2025.
But because I do get accused of over emphasizing the m/m numbers lets look at in context with the full year:
PPI final Demand__m/m rate__y/y rate Aug. 0.3 2.1 Sept. 0.3 2.1 Oct. 0.3 2.8 Nov. 0.1. 2.9 Dec. 0.5. 3.5 2025 Jan. 0.7 3.8
Annualized PPI Aug24-Jan25. 4.5%
Feb. 0.1. 3.3 Mar. -0.2. 3.2 Apr. -0.2 2.4 May 0.4 2.7 June 0.0 2.4 July 0.9 3.3%
Annualized PPI Feb25-Jul 2.0%
So if we wanted to just look at the annualized number, we would have to say PPI is down significantly from where it was at the beginning of the year, in fact a full half of a point from January. But I'm not going to pretend that this months 0.9 PPI is meaningless. if it continues it will cascade down into CPI to some degree or another. If doesn't continue it won't mean a thing or if its a transitory bulge like you can see from Aug24-Jan25 when it the 12 month CPI rocketed from 2.1% to 3.8% it will have a lot more of an impact.
We will know more next month.
Data is here:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm
Apologies to Sarcastro and Josh R for talking about the m/m data again when they've explained several times how meaningless it is.
So, there was a rush to fill warehouses before the tariffs hit. I wonder if those warehouses ran out of the extra product that was stockpiled.
There are of course, many other potential reasons.
Looking closer at the data, I'm not sure how much of it was tariffs.
10-11% of US consumption is imports.
36% of imports are to Finished goods, that won't show up in PPI.
Another 33% are capital goods, those don't show up directly in PPI, but only as inputs to production, that takes a long lag time to show up in PPI.
Then another 15% of imports are food, that's in CPI, but a small part of PPI.
The biggest impact in PPI of course will be to US assembled autos because so many parts are imported.
Be interesting to see the PPI bump if it does show up in CPI, and whether it continues.
Malika ragged on me last week for not posting anything on the weekly jobs report, which I have never posted on before.
But I will post on this one for no particular reason, just because the previous week was so bad (which is why Malika brought it up), and this one is much better:
The latest weekly jobless claims report indicates a slight decrease, with 224,000 initial claims filed for the week ending August 9, a decrease of 3,000 from the previous week's revised level. The four-week moving average also saw a small increase, reaching 221,750."
So jobless claims going down is good news, but the 4 week average saw a slight increase which isn't. Which illustrates that w/w data is noisy.
And just to put it out there this is the first and probably last time I will bring up the weekly unemployment claims data unless something really weird happens.
Are you an economist?
Nope, I am a retired IT Financial Analyst, my first job out of college was in Texaco's federal tax group in the 80's, and then I worked for several large gas, electric and water utilities writing their financial systems.
The head of the economics department when I was in college did make a few pitches for me to change my major to economics, but I think he was just being nice, he was a friend of my father in law who was a Calculus professor in the Math department. I took all my electives in Economics and Finance.
In today's shocking news story: the Obama administration sent federal agents to a rally being held by potential rival Donald Trump at a rally Trump was holding at a California museum. Mask-hating patriots at the rally were quoted as saying that they felt intimidated by the presence of troops at what they described as a peaceful political event.
Does sound a little weird before covid made masks more commonplace.
What year was it, and were they there to arrest someone, or surveillance, or was it just routine intimidation of a potential political opponent?
So, was there any reason to think that people who were subject to arrest would be present? Did they in fact arrest anybody who had warrants out for their arrest?
You send police someplace where they have a legit reason for being, legitimate things to do, that's one thing. You send police someplace just to intimidate, that's another. Back in the 90's I attended a pro-gun rally at the Capitol in Lansing, Michigan.
They had police on the roof tops, that was a bit over the top for a rally that involved women pushing their babies around in strollers, but whatever. Having police near a political rally isn't inherently unreasonable.
They were watching us from the rooftops through rifle scopes, THAT was just deliberate intimidation. THAT was unreasonable.
Also, Gov. Newsom had a tantrum because illegals attending his little “rally” were taken into custody by federal agents. Was this a sanctuary rally? I guess ICE didn’t get the memo that democrats are above the law.
You mean this event?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/protesters-and-police-clash-outside-donald-trump-rallies-in-california/
I don't see any mention of federal law enforcement at that event, so doesn't seem like the right one, no.
I wouldn't expect a strong correlation between right wing grievances and reality.
You should cleanse your Doors of Perception.
CTRL-F is your friend.
"The department had a 'significant presence' of uniformed and plainclothes officers at the bayside gathering and has coordinated with state, local and federal agencies to promptly put a stop to any combative or destructive protesters or counter-protesters, the chief said."
Uhh. That says the law enforcement actually there was local, and that they were talking to various other agencies. Not that those other agencies also had agents present on the ground.
The commenters here are so fucking stupid, they can’t even see an obvious joke. Good lord.
It's how we separate the wheat from the MAGA around here
yeah, the deadpan responses appear to be above you level.
I'm sure all the deficit hawks and government waste crusaders on this blog will go apeshit at the idea of ICE producing a blinged out rap video with their tax dollars.
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1956077756854186191
If they earmarked $2mil like they did on trans affirming healthcare in Guatemala, yeah I’d be pissed.
Hell, if they spent over $1000 I would be upset. ICE probably owns decent cameras. I’m am sure they employ video editors, or at least people who know how to use the software. The most expensive item should be the rights to use the music.
Don't forget the gold lettering on the cars! God forbid they put the president's name on these government vehicles in any other colour.
I should be sky-screaming at the color of lettering?
Uhhh, no.
It's your tax money, not mine.
Yes. And I think two million to support trans surgeries in another country is far less impactful than a few thousand spent making a U.S. entity seem pro-US.
But hey, I get it. You are too far down the tribal rabbit hole to even understand what the govt should be doing.
You; Government spending millions to promote unproven trans surgeries is good.
Also you; Government spending a few thousand to promote a vast majority’s opinion of American sovereignty is wrong.
Believe the Eurotrash’s opinion. He has the best intentions for America at heart.
You. Are. Pathetic.
If it is already "...a vast majority's opinion of American sovereignty," why does it need promoting?
You: full of shit.
Defending your Country? Yes it is
And I'm sure the gun nuts will go apeshit at the idea of the president sending in the army to arrest someone for "carrying a pistol without a license".
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1955011766410416326
The President doesn't make the laws, but he shall faithfully execute them.
He don't pull that is AZ, or the 27 other states with Constitutional Carry, but DC has had home rule and that's the rule they made.
By the way NC may become the 28th state with constitutional carry, the governor vetoed it, but the state senate over road the veto, now its up to the house.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So just curious, are you paid per asinine comment, or just a flat fee for the day? Does the “Ha” insanity above qualify you for extra? Is there a troll union that will lobby for you?
I think our resident Dutchman just has a serious case of US envy, as the Netherlands have been stagnating behind the US for the last 15 years.
The economic stats tell the story. Back in 2010, the Netherlands had a GDP per capita of $51,000...better than the US at $50,000.
Fast forward 15 years. The US GDP per capita is sitting at $86,000 (technically 2024 numbers). The Netherlands is sitting at...$68,000.
Of course, neither of these is inflation adjusted, but that just makes the comparison much easier.
But Hash is legal there!
We have democracy and the rule of law. As long as you don't, you can keep your dollars.
But Hash is legal, right?
Spoken with envy dripping out of your mouth.
For all the rule of law complaints about Trump, most of the anger seems directed at the fact that he IS enforcing laws previous administrations largely blew off.
No discretion, maximum authoritarianism.
Welcome to BrettLaw.
"Discretion" would appear to be in direct conflict with the Presidential duty to see that the law is faithfully executed, but even if you think it isn't, is certainly IS reasonably described as 'blowing off" if systematic.
No, discretion does not conflict with faithful execution.
It does conflict with Brett getting everything he wants.
Common confusion for you.
Having a duty to execute the law doesn't conflict with deciding not to?
"Having a duty to execute the law doesn't conflict with deciding not to?
No, Brett, it doesn't. Prosecutorial resources are not infinite, and prioritizing the use of those resources can be good government.
(Of course, depending on the priorities, it can also be bad government.)
Look, OF COURSE a duty to enforce the law conflicts with deciding to not enforce it. Trivially, it does.
Now, a shortage of resources might require triage; Being incapable of fully enforcing the law, you have to chose which parts to enforce.
And if you think the law in question is unconstitutional, well, unconstitutional laws famously are no law at all, and so your duty wouldn't kick in for them.
But Trump has fully demonstrated that prior administrations' failures to enforce immigration law were NOT due to a lack of resources, they were merely due to a lack of desire.
And only a few nutcases like Somin think having immigration laws is itself unconstitutional, and certainly no prior administration ever argued that.
And failing to enforce the law just due to not wanting to doesn't just trivially violate the take care duty, it is a direct violation of it.
Discretion is discretion; you're throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your way. There is nothing in the law that says eliminate all illegals immediately; you read it in because for all your passion the law is secondary to your policy preferences.
You'll do all the apologia for lawlessness, cruelty, corruption. If your anti-illegal or pro-gun organs are tickled. ------ But lets talk resources and priorities. Trump's allowing cruel tactics and dehumanizing conditions. He's putting noncriminals in prisons.
No, it's not about resource management. It's also about humanity and decency.
Not a priority to you. You don't care. Yet again you demonstrate these people aren't human to you.
The take care duty is in the Constitution, "discretion" is not. I know you'll not care about that, but it remains so.
Discretion and take care are not in tension!
You pretend they are because you can't help but insist you get everything you want and if not it's not legitimate.
Grow up.
And it remains awful that you think by embracing cruelty and dehumanization Trump's managed to solve illegal immigration. Lots of immoral things are resource-efficient.
"And if you think the law in question is unconstitutional, well, unconstitutional laws famously are no law at all, and so your duty wouldn't kick in for them."
Brett, that is not a decision for the executive to make unilaterally. A law is presumed to be constitutional unless and until it is adjudicated to be not so.
"Discretion is discretion; you're throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your way."
Much like you with the sandwich prosecution.
"Brett, that is not a decision for the executive to make unilaterally. A law is presumed to be constitutional unless and until it is adjudicated to be not so."
Presumed by who? Did you read that on the twitter feed of Otto Yourazz?
Oh, I'm not saying the sandwich prosecution is illegal. I'm saying it's *bad.*
You're regularly purposefully unclear on framings, which is a shitty and bad faith way to argue.
"You're regularly purposefully unclear on framings, which is a shitty and bad faith way to argue."
Lol. Your framing was "throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your way," which can apply to both saying something is illegal or saying it's bad.
TwelveInchPianist, you should know by now that I don't make assertions about constitutional law that I can't back up with legal authority. A statute or ordinance is presumptively valid unless and until it has been adjudicated otherwise.
In Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979), a suspect was arrested for violation of a Detroit ordinance which provides that a police officer may stop and question an individual if he has reasonable cause to believe that the individual's "behavior . . . warrants further investigation" for criminal activity, and further provides that it is unlawful for any person so stopped to refuse to identify himself and produce evidence of his identity. In a search which followed, the officers discovered drugs on respondent's person, and he was charged with a drug offense but not with violation of the ordinance. Id., at 33.
The accused moved to suppress the drugs found on his person during the search incident to arrest. The Michigan Court of Appeals allowed an interlocutory appeal and reversed. It held that the Detroit ordinance, § 39-1-52.3, was unconstitutionally vague, and concluded that, since respondent had been arrested pursuant to that ordinance, both the arrest and the search were invalid. That court expressly rejected the State's contention that an arrest made in good faith reliance on a presumptively valid ordinance is valid regardless of whether the ordinance subsequently is declared unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Michigan Court of Appeals remanded with instructions to suppress the evidence. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Id., at 34-35.
SCOTUS granted cert to review the Michigan court's holding that evidence should be suppressed on federal constitutional grounds, although it was obtained as a result of an arrest pursuant to a presumptively valid ordinance, and it reversed the suppression ruling, expressly rejecting the Respondent's contention that, since the ordinance which he was arrested for violating has been found unconstitutionally vague on its face, the arrest and search were invalid as violative of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reasoned:
When the officer arrested respondent, he had abundant probable cause to believe that respondent's conduct violated the terms of the ordinance. . . . Assuming, arguendo, that a person may not constitutionally be required to answer questions put by an officer in some circumstances, the false identification violated the plain language of the Detroit ordinance. * * * On this record, there was abundant probable cause to satisfy the constitutional prerequisite for an arrest. At that time, of course, there was no controlling precedent that this ordinance was or was not constitutional, and hence the conduct observed violated a presumptively valid ordinance. A prudent officer, in the course of determining whether respondent had committed an offense under all the circumstances shown by this record, should not have been required to anticipate that a court would later hold the ordinance unconstitutional. [Emphasis added.] Police are charged to enforce laws until and unless they are declared unconstitutional. The enactment of a law forecloses speculation by enforcement officers concerning its constitutionality -- with the possible exception of a law so grossly and flagrantly unconstitutional that any person of reasonable prudence would be bound to see its flaws. Society would be ill-served if its police officers took it upon themselves to determine which laws are and which are not constitutionally entitled to enforcement.
When the officer arrested respondent, he had abundant probable cause to believe that respondent's conduct violated the terms of the ordinance. . . . Assuming, arguendo, that a person may not constitutionally be required to answer questions put by an officer in some circumstances, the false identification violated the plain language of the Detroit ordinance. * * * On this record, there was abundant probable cause to satisfy the constitutional prerequisite for an arrest. At that time, of course, there was no controlling precedent that this ordinance was or was not constitutional, and hence the conduct observed violated a presumptively valid ordinance. A prudent officer, in the course of determining whether respondent had committed an offense under all the circumstances shown by this record, should not have been required to anticipate that a court would later hold the ordinance unconstitutional. [Emphasis added.]
Police are charged to enforce laws until and unless they are declared unconstitutional. The enactment of a law forecloses speculation by enforcement officers concerning its constitutionality -- with the possible exception of a law so grossly and flagrantly unconstitutional that any person of reasonable prudence would be bound to see its flaws. Society would be ill-served if its police officers took it upon themselves to determine which laws are and which are not constitutionally entitled to enforcement.
Id., at 36-38.
“ TwelveInchPianist, you should know by now that I don't make assertions about constitutional law that I can't back up with legal authority.”
Lol. Is that as true as everything else you’ve said?
As I said, presumed constitutional by who? What does any of this have to do with Brett’s point about the President’s duty to execute laws that he believes are unconstitutional?
Presumed constitutional by the judiciary, doofus. You know, the branch of government that says what the law is:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. Page 5 U. S. 178 So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. Page 5 U. S. 178 So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177-178 (1803).
And yes, what I say here is indeed as true as everything else I have said.
"Presumed constitutional by the judiciary, doofus. "
Were we talking about any presumption by the judiciary, dipshit? And of course, the judiciary doesn't exclusively get to say what the law is, and they only get to say that if there's a case or controversy.
No one else has any obligation to presume that a law is constitutional unless and until the judiciary says it's not, as you imply.
For example, I am free to decide a law is unconstitutional and disobey it, and unless someone tries to enforce the law, the judiciary doesn't even get to weigh in. And if I'm charged and the judiciary agrees that it's unconstitutional, I don't get punished even though the law was presumptively constitutional when I violated it.
I mean, this is pretty basic stuff. Are you sure you were a lawyer?
"And yes, what I say here is indeed as true as everything else I have said."
I can see that.
Civil disobedience, for someone willing to accept the consequences that flow therefrom, is always an option for an individual who regards legislation or other governmental action to be unconstitutional.
That matters not one whit, however, in how the federal government is structured. Per U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 3, Senators and Representatives and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, are bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the U. S. Constitution.
A Congressional or other legislative enactment enjoys a presumption of constitutionality. "Indeed, by according laws a presumption of constitutional validity, courts presume that legislatures act in a constitutional manner." Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 351 (1987).
That presumption has been baked into the cake of the laws which the President is charged in Article II, § 3 to take care to faithfully execute. The Constitution confers no authority upon the executive branch to unilaterally determine an enactment of Congress to be unconstitutional.
But I suspect that you know that and are merely acting boneheaded, TwelveInch.
Nobody’s talking about civil disobedience, quit deflecting.
And after all your bloviating, you still haven’t provided any authority for your ridiculous claim that the President is required to presume that laws are constitutional until courts find otherwise when he exercises his enforcement discretion.
You lie, TwelveInch. You are yourself talking about civil disobedience:
That is the quintessence of civil disobedience.
As for your kvetching that I "still haven’t provided any authority for [my] ridiculous claim that the President is required to presume that laws are constitutional until courts find otherwise when he exercises his enforcement discretion", that claim is not "ridiculous" at all. I have cited upthread to the proposition that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). To observe that the Judicial branch does not include the President is mere tautology; ergo, it is not the province and duty of the President to say what the law is.
In his famed concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson observed that:
The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not, and cannot, conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses, or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress. We may well begin by a somewhat over-simplified grouping of practical situations in which a President may doubt, or others may challenge, his powers, and by distinguishing roughly the legal consequences of this factor of relativity.
More recently Chief Justice Roberts has opined: "No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily "stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2327 (2024), quoting Youngstown, 343 U.S., at 585.
No federal statute nor any provision of the Constitution authorizes the President to unilaterally determine the constitutionality vel non of federal statutes. Donald Trump is accordingly hoist with his own Trump v. U.S. petard. W. Shakespeare, Hamlet act 3, scene 4.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
If legal analysis were easy, top shelf lawyers wouldn't get paid the big bucks.
I have long said that I would prefer to have a skillful lawyer on the other side, because a bad lawyer will create additional work for me in explaining the basics that (s)he overlooks or misrepresents. These comment threads demonstrate that a non-lawyer dilettante who has never attempted to persuade a judge or jury of anything is even more problematic.
"That is the quintessence of civil disobedience."
Offs. Civil disobedience is the manifest disobedience of an unjust law, along with the willingness to accept the consequences. If you do that, no court will adjudicate whether the law is just, they will just punish you.
I was talking about violating a law that was likely to be found unconstitutional(which may or may not be just), based on that belief that the law is unconstitutional and thus no law at all. I am perfectly free to do that without presuming the law is unconstitutional.
And if I successfully convince the judiciary that the law is unconstitutional, there is no punishment based on the fact that it was presumed constitutional when I violated it, and ultimately no disobedience.
So again, you've done lots of typing, but you've provided nothing to support your original proposition. And the reason you haven't is because your original proposition is incorrect. So why don't you just cite to Otto Yourazz and be done with it.
"If legal analysis were easy, top shelf lawyers wouldn't get paid the big bucks."
I hear some guys get paid big bucks without even doing any legal analysis.
This is an impressive amount of scrolling all the way up to hit the reply button again.
Sure, except for the laws he doesn't like, the laws his "donors" don't like, and the constitutional constraints on his power. But apart from that, it's definitely too much law enforcement that troubles me.
*J6 rioters have entered the chat*
It’s also a little before 3pm in Amsterdam. Are you on the clock when doing your daily trolling?
Day drinking.
$51k was €35k in 2010. $68k was €63k based on the approx 2024 avg.
So, which country has got richer faster? 180% growth plays 170%. Hmmm...
None of which should detract from the Nazi Dutch nutjob unironically typing out an evil laugh.
Venezuela is damn rich then over that timeline.
It's pretty depressing to see how you guys basically have no principles at all.
Before Trump, 2A fans constantly talked about how trying to take guns away from the people was the first thing authoritarian governments (and the Nazis in particular) did to help make sure they could control people. Now you get the federal government taking over law enforcement and going around taking people's guns away and the response is a shrug and "that's just the law!"
Meanwhile, DC also had decided under home rule that it didn't want its law enforcement cooperating with the federal government on immigration enforcement, but Bondi just announced she's overriding that, so it seems like deference to home rule is awfully selective.
'It's legal so it's good' is a common MAGA argument these days.
It's also authoritarianism distilled.
Which association MAGA is denying less and less.
Back during Clinton, Bill Moyers was interviewing a woman, I forget who, who addresssd objections the Republicans had over the proposed single payer medical plan.
She: They just don't wanna obey the law!
Both: (laughing)
Two wrongs don't make a right. Both sides are shit.
False. They don't care whether it's legal. It's "Trump ordered it so it's good, and what are you going to do about it?"
They still twist themselves to argue legality, though the mask of good faith gets looser and looser as things get harder and harder to deny.
Under the Law, Trump is allowed to enforce the laws, he is not allowed to change them. As far as "immigration enforcement" goes that is the responsibility of the Federal Government. DC didn't make a law stating that Law Enforcement couldn't cooperate with the Federal Government. It is a policy, that can be changed. Are you being deceitful JB or are you that stupid?
He's literally ignoring appropriations, which are laws, and the anti-impoundment act, which is a law.
The only one going apeshit here is you, based on apparently imagined facts. In previous similar cases under Trump 47, DC or Capitol police made the arrests:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/three-district-men-indicted-following-firearms-arrest-during-early-morning-traffic-stop https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-injured-shooting-suspect-arrested-with-unregistered-gun-saturday-morning-dc-police/ar-AA1GhJqU https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/5102927-capitol-police-officer-suspended-for-allowing-man-with-concealed-gun-into-building/
Tl;dr you don't care about the 2nd amendment.
No, that's just you making shit up yet again because you can't back up your incredibly stupid hot takes with facts.
You're the one cheerleading a president who is bragging online about arresting someone for no other crime than possessing a gun. What am I missing?
Where have I led any cheers? As I said, you keep inventing things when the actual facts don't back you. You are missing a connection with basic reality.
I haven't spoken to the merits of that particular arrest because I couldn't find any details about it. Quite often, as in the earlier cases I linked to, a US arrest for unlicensed possession of a weapon reflects only a small part of what drew the attention of law enforcement and of what the risk to the law-abiding public was.
Your head is so far up Trump's ass that you can taste what he had for breakfast. Why are you suddenly pretending that you've never heard of the guy?
Well, that's one way to brazenly admit that you have just been making things up.
Arresting a guy for assault with a sandwich?
One slathered with Mayonnaise?? Please just shoot me instead.
It was an attack sub.
Man Tells Subway Worker He's Looking For Something With Stopping Power That's Compact And Easy To Conceal
I care deeply about the 2nd Amendment. I also care about the law. The law in D.C. is that you need a license to carry a gun. It's very difficult to obtain (intentionally). And they will arrest, jail, and charge you if they catch you carrying without a license.
The law should certainly be changed, but that is how it is right now.
Eurotrash doesn't care about the Take Care Clause or the rule of law. He merely thinks Nazi Racist King Trump should go 118% authoritarian and unilaterally ignore laws that some right-wingers believe are based on bad policies. Or maybe that baskets of deplorables are hypocrites for not thinking that.
Jesus Christ, are you seriously acting like Trump has ever cared one flying fuck about his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed? What's next, an argument that he's a literal saint who should win a Nobel Prize?
If it was any other commenter I'd assume you were trolling.
You gonna be ok? You need a glass of water or something?
Nope. I have not talked at all about what Donald Trump should do, or is likely to do. Based on his behavior, he's a thin-skinned bully who seems to prefer autocracy to the US federal system with three branches of government. But directionally he has good instincts and in spite of his sins is still better than the Democrats.
What I have been saying is that you seem to want him to apply all his autocratic urges, just in the direction that Democrats want.
They're charging the guy who threw a sandwich with federal assault. It apparently took 20 agents to take in such a dangerous criminal.
Police state tactics tip to tail. Utterly useless to actually enforce the law; but chilling as all hell.
"Police state tactics tip to tail."
Arresting someone who committed an assault for assault. Just like Hitler!
It's a fucking sandwich, Bob.
'It's legal so it must be legitimate' says the authoritarian tool.
Today it's a sandwich, tomorrow it's a rock (like a few weeks ago), then it's a tactical assault with rifles (like a few weeks ago).
Putting him in prison for a little while will discourage people from committing random illegal assaults on the police and federal agents.
Besides, he can learn more about sandwiches in prison. He will be the fresh meat.
Sandwiches lead to rifles!
What a clownish slippery slope justification for a police state.
DON'T BREAD ON ME
"What a clownish slippery slope justification for a police state."
Punishing people for throwing food at other people is a police state?
I guess you don't know what a police state really is.
Oh look at your disingenuous framing. "Punishing people."
*Federal assault charges* in response to a sandwich throw is indeed police state level overreaction.
Goddamn have some integrity, this is embarrassing.
How is "punishing people" disingenuous? That's precisely what you're complaining about.
It was assault on a federal law enforcement official, who do you think is going to charge him? Are you suggesting that throwing a sandwich at someone isn't assault?
What do you think people who assault other people should be arrested for?
I've consistently said federal assault. You changed it to the much more general 'punish.'
You know you did it; you know why you did it.
Now you're claiming if it's technically legal, it's not an overreaction.
You're terrible, and it seems you support a police state. Why did you become hollow like this?
"I've consistently said federal assault."
Again, what do you expect the feds to charge someone who committed assault with?
And what's wrong with referring to assault charges, federal or otherwise, as punishment?
It's not like they could bring state assault charges, given that the attack happened in DC.
Not to worry, I know of about 100 people that actually assaulted federal police and they all got pardoned.
By the way, I can't quite put my finger on what these guys have in common: https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1955011746202030267
I can only see the first picture, but is that Willie Horton Jr.?
You can edit the URL and replace x.com with xcancel.com to see the rest of the thread.
Apparently, Martinned thinks this guy looks too African: https://xcancel.com/WhiteHouse/status/1955011754897052144#m
Martinned just cannot figure out why law enforcement would arrest criminals. It's too damn hard for him to figure out.
Note that this highlights that Martinned was lying about "sending in the army to arrest" these people: it was a multi-agency tall force that does NOT include any part of the Army.
Racists like you and the Trump administration have never cared about the difference between black people and other non-white people, except as a fig leaf to complain about the Ivy Leagues. So why start now?
First he’s a Nazi. Then a king. A racist nazi king? The liberal progressive crowd is not generally known for self reflection so you probably don’t realize that you making an ass out of yourself. I’m just here to help. You’ll thank me later.
Bot not programmed to grasp that Nazis were/are racists.
Bot not programmed to realize that other bot was programmed to accuse people of being racist whenever it starts losing an argument.
I did note that you assholes lacked the ability to self-reflect. Thanks for the additional example but really didn't need any more input. Check back Monday.
and Socialists, you guys always leave that one out.
Speaking of race and Twitter links, https://x.com/memeticsisyphus/status/1956127224769216635
(Ms. St. Felix drew attention because The New Yorker published an article she wrote accusing Sydney Sweeney of racist, banal provocation over some clothing ad. Ms. St. Felix has deleted her Twitter account since her posting history was unveiled.)
They need to employ Kyle Rittenhouse. He'll go merrily skipping down Pennsylvania going 'LaLaLaLaLa!'. And when he sees a neegro he'll get subjectively scared (who wouldn't?!) and then BOOM! Easter Wabbit Stew.
OMG! Rittenhouse shot a black guy? When did that happen? Last I heard, the dudes he took out were white liberal criminals who make extremely poor life decisions. Must be a new development, I guess.
Well, they were criminals, so Hobie just assumed they must have been black, because that's what he thinks of blacks.
Darned pale blacks if you ask me.
they were criminals
Once again, "never mind due process" Brett convicts a priori.
The worst libertarian.
Apparently in your world the term "convicted criminal" is just an exercise in redundancy. Fascinating stuff.
6 details the Kyle Rittenhouse jury didn't consider when it deliberated the teenager's fate
"All three men shot by Rittenhouse had criminal records, though the jury remained unaware of most of them throughout the trial."
"Rosenbaum spent roughly 15 years in prison in his early adulthood, according to Arizona prison records. Court documents showed that Rosenbaum was accused of sexually abusing five pre-teen boys in 2002, was indicted on 11 counts of child molestation, and eventually pleaded guilty to two amended counts of sexual conduct with a minor."
"Huber pleaded guilty in 2013 to two felony counts of strangulation and suffocation, and false imprisonment, court records showed. According to a criminal complaint, Rittenhouse's defense attorneys cited without the jury present, Huber had pulled a knife on his brother and grandmother, and choked his brother amid an argument about housecleaning. Kenosha County jail records show that Huber spent a little over four months behind bars and was released on probation."
"Grosskreutz confirmed on the witness stand that he had previously been convicted of a crime, but did not tell the jury what it was. Wisconsin court records show he pleaded guilty in 2016 to one misdemeanor count of being armed while intoxicated."
So, I had no need to convict them, courts had already done that for me.
Even felons can be redeemed, Brett. We're all living through such redemption
Felons seeking redemption rarely participate in riots or attempt to assault strangers.
Funny you should mention that. The felon I have cryptically referred to did indeed conduct a riot
The person you are referring to participated in a riot? When did that happen? Of course the people I was referring to were actively participating in a riot when shot.
You can claim they're redeemed all you want, but it seems a bit much to object to referring to convicted criminals as "criminals", as Sarcastr0 did.
Brett, you’re being a fucking worm. Stop it and have some self respect.
Brett's a worm for calling out Sarcastro out on his dumb comment?
I'm surprised Sarcastro hasn't apologized to Brett yet.
Nathan Poe approves this message.
"Even felons can be redeemed, Brett. We're all living through such redemption."
Yup, I was just reading about a guy who was convicted of a bunch of felonies, completed his sentence, and managed to get himself elected to the highest office in the country.
Kinda brings a tear to your eye.
Liberal tears, baby!
What does this have to do with Rittenhouse's defense?
Are you saying that shooting someone who has a criminal record (wonder how often armed while intoxicated is prosecuted, BTW) is not as serious as shooting someone who doesn't?
I don't think so, and of course it's sensible not to tell the jury about the convictions, as they have no bearing on Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence.
Well, of course, Rittenhouse's defense didn't depend on their being criminals; as noted in the article I linked to, the jury (As proper mushrooms.) were kept ignorant of that.
Rittenhouse's defense depended on his reasonably being in fear of his life as they attacked him.
I didn't mention their criminal records in the context of defending Rittenhouse, who having been acquitted needs no defense. I mentioned it in the course of speculating why Hobie might have thought they were black.
I fully agree with the jury that the prosecution did not negate or rebut Kyle Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
That does not mean that what that shlub did was noble or in any way admirable.
No, just lawful.
"never mind due process"
He shot in self defense. Perfectly legal, the jury agreed.
Well, the cause of the DC police takeover was a white kid getting beat up. Oh, and then there is the white Afrikaners that are being welcomed. Chicago, not enough whites are being hired.
Hmmm, what do they have in common?
Speaking of things I can't quite put my finger on, I wonder what Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Baltimore and New York all have in common. It's not that they have Democratic mayors, because New York has Eric Adams. But there must be some reason why Trump singled these people out...
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/14/nx-s1-5501273/trump-dc-takeover-cities-mayors-police-national-guard
"It's not that they have Democratic mayors, because New York has Eric Adams."
What do you mean? Adams has been a Democrat since 2002.
Sure, and that's why he's currently polling at 7% in New York even if you count non-Democrats. He didn't even run in the Democratic primary.
I get it! they're run by members of a Demographic Group that commits violent crime way out of proportion to their share of the population.
New York actually does not have a particularly high rate of violent crime.
In particular the homicide rate at 3.92/100,000, is 127th among American cities.
NYC benefits from having extremely good emergency medicine; The sort of attack which would typically result in a homicide out in the country, where emergency response times can be a half hour to an hour, and the emergency rooms are poorly equipped, will frequently be demoted to assault and battery in NYC, because the victim survives.
So, homicide is down, but felony assault is UP. It's not that people are getting attacked less, it's just that a larger fraction of them are surviving the attacks.
NYC benefits from having extremely good emergency medicine; The sort of attack which would typically result in a homicide out in the country, where emergency response times can be a half hour to an hour, and the emergency rooms are poorly equipped,
Ah. The inevitable excuse. You just can't stand the idea that something good might happen in a city.
First, the list is of cities, not rural areas.
Second, major cities tend to have good emergency care, if only because density means hospitals are closer.
Third, high rates are a consequence of many things, no doubt including availability of care, but to pretend the blood would be in the streets in NYC but for emergency care is truly silly.
Still, I sympathize. Cutbacks in Medicaid have definitely reduced the quality and availability of care in rural areas.
Finally, wrt to your "point," the total violent crime rate in NYC is also fairly low. It's 67th there, with a rate lower than many other major cities: Minneapolis, Houston, Nashville, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis, Phoenix, to name just a few.
"You just can't stand the idea that something good might happen in a city."
It actually IS good that they're getting better at saving assault victims' lives, Bernard.
You speculated that the homicide rate being down is a spurious statistic based on speculation about relative trauma center abilities.
That's a huge stretch for many of the reasons loki lays out above. The only motive I can think of for you deciding to go off on that fit of fancy is that you have an outcome in mind - casting shade on on NYC's policy-based accomplishment.
Ok so being a worm is just what he’s doing today, got it.
Man, who peed in your wheaties today?
That is a conundrum. Does it have anything to do with the resurrection of Confederate monuments and the import of white, racist South Africans?
Oakland has had failed mayoral leadership since it no long had Jerry Brown as mayor. The Occupy movement and BLM activities and COVID shutdowns have ruined what had been a healthy urban recovery and replaced it with spreading lawbreaking.
If only minorities would shut up and take it, cities would be way healthier. /s
If only they would respect black business that they vandalize. If only the trash who find excuses for public lawlessness would STFU.
Nico — Sometimes societies learn lessons only by bitter experience. A problem with that method is its lack of staying power. While the generation which suffered hard experiences dies off, the younger polity left in charge may have to re-endure bitter experiences, to relearn the lessons.
Nico, you are apparently too young to know that your remarks on urban racial unrest reflect exactly benighted attitudes familiar from the past. During the 1960s remarks like yours became widespread among whites, before seasons of, "long hot summers," torched urban ghettos across the nation.
You capture that previous baleful tone with precision. You have even singled out a locale among those most prominent at the time.
The specific unlearned lesson your comments example is that no amount of white dominance can afford peace while blacks believe they live lives of socially and legally inflicted injustice. And in cases of that sort, opinions of whites about the justice of black lives count for nothing. Only opinions of blacks themselves matter in that calculus. Unsurprisingly, calls for increased force do not improve blacks' estimates of the justice afforded them.
Your commentary makes It look like multiple generations of whites must learn anew for themselves what bygone bitter events taught their parents and grandparents.
More hilarious than worrying: I assume the US will impose China-level tariffs on Norway no later than October, given that apparently the Norwegian finance minister refused to promise Trump the Nobel Prize when he called to complain about it.
https://www.dn.no/politikk/fredsprisen/nobelprisen/jens-stoltenberg/kilder-til-dn-trump-tok-opp-nobelpris-i-tolltelefon-med-stoltenberg/2-1-1857308
Trump should definitely receive the Nobel Prize... in Literature, for his impressive™︎ performance in writing executive orders.
Oh, so you're jumping on the "I hate Trump" bandwagon, too? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Trump is using the US like a thug to extort something he wants but has not earned from another country.
Your reaction is that you're mad someone seems not to like Trump.
He has been on that bandwagon since 2016. What's new, except that he now talks about vibes rather than moving goalposts.
How about a Posthumous one for President Truman?
LOL!
Is it possible to effectively enforce tariffs on Norwegian goods when Norway is part of the European single market?
19 U.S.C. §1304 requires all imported articles or their container to be marked with their country of origin, so CBP knows not only where it was shipped from but also where it came from.
This has been largely ignored for decades.
My brother married a clothing designer. In the late 1970s, she quit a well-paying job in the Pacific Northwest, working for one of the nation's leading sportswear merchandisers. She had refused to supervise a program to sew, "Made in USA," labels into goods imported from Asia.
I am a 28-year veteran of law enforcement. The DC USAO prosecuted me for taking off-duty action in the Metro against unlawful subway dancers. This prosecution ended my LE career and makes it much harder for me to find another job. Even if you disagree with my actions, perhaps you also disagree with the 2-tier justice that throws the book at a white cop (perceived white - I am actually biracial) who was just trying to restore order in the commons - exactly what the Trump Admin is doing right now in DC.
I have a Change.org petition to urge the President to pardon me. Please take a look:
https://www.change.org/p/pardon-combat-veteran-and-law-enforcement-officer-harold-christy
Thank you.
Who is the other tier in this 2-tier justice metaphor?
Anyway, yes, the US needs better data protection laws.
The other tier is the thousands of more serious offenders who went unprosecuted. I was subjected to an episode of CSI:DC to find me from Metrocard records and station video (not hard when you have a job, pay your fare, and take the train at the same time every day). The man I pushed was similarly tracked down (because he didn't feel the incident justified complaining to the po-po, especially when he had an active warrant), and never bothered to show up for trial. Meanwhile hundreds of stabbings in the Metro system are going unsolved.
The plot thickens...
If you do the crime, you do the time. (Or at least you don't complain about having to do time.) That said, yes, I agree that in the US criminals are tarred and feathered Old Testament style in a way that is inappropriate for what is allegedly a civilised country. (And in a way that, fascinatingly, crosses ideological boundaries.)
Also in DC, misdemeanors below 6 months do not get a jury trial. I know there is SCOTUS law on point from the 80s upholding this, but I also know life is different now from the 80s. Any conviction, however slight, follows you everywhere, for life. The facts have changed, so the judge-made law should change.
Fascinatingly, the one hole in this rule comes from a case where the defendant was an alien, and so subject to deportation as well as 180 days in the can. The DCCA found this additional penalty entitled him to a jury. While the same right is denied to descendants of enslaved Americans.
So you attacked some people without provocation on the subway, for reasons which are likely revealed by your choice of username. And we're supposed to feel sorry for you? My god, LEOs have an amazing sense of entitlement.
David Never-coherent, Never-coherenting early today.
You know how I first learned about Mosby? From a huge black Ranger Instructor who was giving us a rah-rah speech before graduation, telling us that we were joining the ranks of Rogers, Darby, Morgan, and Mosby.
Mosby used all his skill and guile to fight for his state. When the war was over he served the US again, loyally, for many years.
I also admire other military geniuses who fought for regimes many people would find objectionable: Zhukov, Sharon, Adan, Kahalani, Giap, Wellington, Guderian, etc.
In addition to a pardon, you should get an apology from DC officials. And the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Is that actually illegal?
Is what actually illegal?
Dancing in a subway.
Yes, multiple DC statutes violated. Aggressive panhandling for one. By the way, the aggressive panhandling statute was created to give an option to lock someone up for a lower charge than felony robbery/fear. Also, they were assaulting me, by dancing so close to me in a confined space. Puts me in apprehension of imminent offensive contact, see? And by keeping me in a confined space, false imprisonment - which in DC is glommed under the felony kidnapping statute.
So multiple felonies and misdemeanors.
My affirmative defenses included: self defense against their assault and false imprisonment; defense of others against their robbery/fear; citizens arrest authority for their assaults; and my LEO Terry stop authority for their false imprisonment and robbery/fear. The judge rejected all of these and said I was just angry. As if you can't be both angry and justified.
Isn't that the whole mindset of the Left: righteous indignation?
Sounds like the sort of highly fact intensive defense that would typically have to be resolved by a jury, frankly.
Ding ding ding! Why yes, thank you!
Brett, take a look at the video. The action starts just before the 2 minute mark and is over by 4 minutes.
Things you will see:
Some guys dancing, being shouted at and then assaulted by the Grey Ghost himself, with no provocation.
The dancers non-aggressively asking a few people for money, and leaving the car.
Things you will not see:
The GG being assaulted by anyone, though the dancers did try to defend themselves against his attack.
The GG being imprisoned or held against his will.
Robbery or attempted robbery or threatening behavior by the dancers.
Passengers who seemed fearful. Mostly they ignored the dancers.
The GG is full of shit.
See my remark above. My only comment here beyond it is that I have long objected to the Supreme court's gutting the 6th amendment by allowing defendants to be deprived of their right to a trial by jury for supposedly 'petty' offenses, despite that word "all" you'll find, not once, but twice, in the Constitution.
Not only the 6th amendment,
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..."
but also Article 3, section 2 clause 3:
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;"
As I've remarked before, "all" is not a particularly vague or ambiguous word.
Would he have fared better if he'd gotten the jury trial the Constitution guaranteed him, but the Court denied him? No idea, but he was still entitled to it.
I think in 1787, many colonies had summary (non-jury) proceedings for offenses that just got you a day in the stocks or a couple shillings’ fine. So as with the death penalty, the Framers couldn’t possibly have meant to ban something they were doing. This is probably SCOTUS’s rationale for allowing non-jury convictions for petty offenses today.
But in 1787, once you got sprung from the stocks, you were expected back at work. Or if no one in your village could bear to hire you, you could go to the next county, where no one ever heard of you, and prove your mettle again by slinging hog muck for a ha’penny a day.
Not so in our postmodern world, where most jobs are trust-based and everyone does a background check of some type, even just a Google News search which will find that Police Blotter column from the Podunk Weekly Shopper.
Since the facts have changed, the case law must change.
In 1787 it was a Bill of Rights for the federal government, that only applied to the federal government, and so the states were free to do as they liked in that regard.
It wasn't until the 14th amendment when the Bill of Rights applied to the states, and that was supposed to change things at the state level.
That said, text is binding unless ambiguous, and "all" is not a word that leaves any ambiguity.
@Brett: Since this was in DC, any federal government constitutional rules apply even without the 14th.
You’re a criminal who needs therapy, not a pardon. You obviously haven’t learned a thing.
Your bio is remarkably free of any legal training… and it shows.
What are my legal errors? Educate me.
1) Nothing in the video remotely reflects "assault." 2) Nothing in the video remotely reflects "aggressive panhandling." 3) Nothing in the video remotely reflects "kidnapping" or "false imprisonment."
You were not afraid. You were mad. At those black people playing their black music.
Ok, let's take this one point at a time:
1. Assault is an intentional act that places another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. I was in reasonable apprehension (not "fear") of offensive contact (having the dancer's sweaty ganja-reeking self bump into or fall on me as he and the train moved erratically). And he intended to dance - indeed kept dancing even while someone was asking him not to. So he was assaulting me.
2. Aggressive panhandling - even easier - no common law involved. 22 DC Code 2302(b): "No person may ask, beg, or solicit alms in any public transportation vehicle; or at any bus, train, or subway station or stop." It's a 90-day misdemeanor, even if they had asked from 50 feet away or handed out engraved Emily Post requests, let alone the way they did it. They could have had their own jury-less trial.
3. False imprisonment: unlawful confinement or restraint of a person without legal justification. E.g., by dancing erratically all around the person at close distance, on a moving train where it is hard to walk around even without interference. And the 30-year felony kidnapping statute, 22 DC Code 2001, has a very broad definition: "Whoever shall be guilty of, or of aiding or abetting in, seizing, confining, inveigling, enticing, decoying, kidnapping, abducting, concealing, or carrying away any individual by any means whatsoever." No minimum time for the confinement. And no misdemeanor version of this statute.
"You were not afraid" - never said I was afraid. Said I was in apprehension of imminent offensive contact. One analogy could be a guy swinging around a paintbrush loaded with red paint. You're in apprehension of imminent red paint on your new suit. No 'fear' in the plain-English meaning of the word.
"You were mad" - No I wasn't. Was I speaking loudly? Yes, to be heard over the loud music and to make my position clear. I was taught 28 years ago that your voice is your first control instrument. I testified at my trial that sometimes you have to be loud to get the attention of lawless men. Anyway, it's a false dichotomy. You can defend yourself angrily, merrily, sensually, or any other way you want. I would contend that most people defending themselves are angry.
"At those black people playing their black music." No. Watch the tape - there is a black gentleman about my age in a company polo and ID lanyard. Clearly a fellow commuter. Was I angry at him for being on the train with me? No. I was commuting from my office which is over half black. Was I angry at all my coworkers for working while black? No. And the color of the music doesn't matter (does music have a color? I was criticized on this thread for calling music violent - maybe I should return a cheap shot about calling music black). If it was Judas Priest, Marillion, Roxy Music, Rogers and Hammerstein, Wagner, Danzig, Tiny Tim's Tiptoe Thru the Tulips being played that loud, it would be the same thing. The violent rap lyrics do make it worse, though. If it was white skinheads slamdancing, Indonesian versions of Beavis and Butthead playing air-guitar, or Sikh ballerinas in tutus dancing Swan Lake up and down the aisle, it would be the same.
You ascribe a racist motive because of my perceived race. Which makes you the racist.
Assault is an intentional act that places another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
It is not. You're quoting something, but it's not the DC Penal Code. You seem to be confusing the tort of assault with the crime.
Aggressive panhandling - even easier - no common law involved. 22 DC Code 2302(b): "No person may ask, beg, or solicit alms in any public transportation vehicle; or at any bus, train, or subway station or stop."
(1) They did not do that. (2) You seem unaware that broad anti-panhandling statutes have been repeatedly blocked as violations of the 1A. (3) You seem to have forgotten the "aggressive" part of your allegation, which you fail to even address.
False imprisonment: unlawful confinement or restraint of a person without legal justification. E.g., by dancing erratically all around the person at close distance, on a moving train where it is hard to walk around even without interference. And the 30-year felony kidnapping statute, 22 DC Code 2001, has a very broad definition: "Whoever shall be guilty of, or of aiding or abetting in, seizing, confining, inveigling, enticing, decoying, kidnapping, abducting, concealing, or carrying away any individual by any means whatsoever." No minimum time for the confinement. And no misdemeanor version of this statute.
Nothing in the video meets that definition. The train car of course confined you, but that was consensual. They did not.
Oh, Nieporent. "You're quoting something, but it's not the DC Penal Code. You seem to be confusing the tort of assault with the crime." - Not confusing anything. The DC Code just uses the word assault, and never defines it. Which means the common law definition applies. Also, I was defending myself against both the tort and crime of assault. Either way, my self defense is not a crime.
"They did not do that." - they danced with a bucket that already had money in it. Come on.
" broad anti-panhandling statutes have been repeatedly blocked as violations of the 1A." - this one hasn't. And it's not broad - it's pretty specific.
"You seem to have forgotten the "aggressive" part of your allegation" - Come on man, you looked up the statute. The para right before the one I cited talks about aggressive panhandling. All the paras get the same penalty, so they are collectively referred to as aggressive panhandling.
It would be like you said I jaywalked and cited the statute, and I looked up the statute, and it said "no person may cross the street against the light," and I said "AHA! The statute doesn't use the word jaywalking. So I didn't jaywalk. Nyah!"
Be a grown up. There are a lot of grown up arguments you can make against me.
"The train car of course confined you, but that was consensual. They did not." - they were keeping me up against the wall of the train, with a partition on one side of me, and their erratic movements on the other two sides. Had I tried to move away from them, the erratic movement of the train would have made it difficult, and I would likely have bumped into them. At which point you would still be accusing me of battering them (which you can't, because the DC Code doesn't use the word battery! Nyah!).
Anyway, the US has to disprove all of my affirmative defenses to win. I don't think they did, and I think the judge erred in rejecting them. That's why I'm appealing.
You just don't want to see an apparently white person defending himself and the commons. You want me to move to the back of the train, shut up, and subsidize the destruction of our communal spaces.
JSM
Not inherently, no. Obviously when combined with other conduct it can be. But "being black" isn't an example of such conduct, despite what the crook thinks.
They don't call it the District of Colored People for nothing.
Well, you should have learned which people in D.C. you needed to assault to get a presidential pardon. Dancing neegroes ain't it (although I imagine it's pretty damn close).
What is a "subway dancer"?
Exactly what it sounds like: someone who gets in a subway car and starts dancing. This guy implied that his victims were busking, although I'm not sure there's actual evidence of that.
Either way, even busking doesn't warrant a violent (by definition) assault by a citizen or on-duty law enforcement officer. An officer would have to detain or proceed to arrest first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hpq_ZHiu98
Subway dance crews take over the confined space of a moving subway car, play loud, often obscene and violent, music to a captive audience, put on an athletic display of dancing which often involves swinging from the poles and straps, and ask for money from that captive audience. My dancers had a bucket on the floor, which is the international sign for “give me money.”
It is aggressive panhandling, which is robbery by fear.
Suppose I had been a nonwhite, non-cop, female professional, just trying to finish my commute, and these skells blasted Gunna’s “One of Wun” with lyrics that use the f- and n-words as punctuation, and refer to having sex with “snow bunnies” with the issue of consent ambiguous at best? And put on their display of acrobatics within arms reach of her, when any sudden braking or acceleration by the train driver could send them tumbling into her? And suppose that Ms Mosby just shoved one of the dancers’ ganga-reeking, smelly self out of her face?
Would you want all these consequences descending on her?
If not, why do you want them descending on me? Is it because I have blue eyes and a badge?
Sign the petition.
There is, of course, no such thing as "violent music." And also, your victims didn't do those things.
Of course there is violent music, in the sense of music that creates an atmosphere of violence. Just like there are love songs - the song itself doesn’t love anyone, but it creates the mood. Or religious hymns - the music doesn’t do anything spiritual, but it guides the listener to spiritual thoughts.
If these were two skinheads slam-dancing each other to Rammstein or Danzig, my reaction would have been the same. Would yours?
"Of course there is violent music, in the sense of music that creates an atmosphere of violence."
So Johnny Cash actually did shoot a man in Reno, just to watch him die?
Bob Marley actually did shoot the sheriff (but he did not shoot the deputy)?
Marty Robbins actually did shoot the cowboy at Rose's Cantina?
And Todd Rundgren didn't go to work - he just banged on his drum all day.
None of those songs are violent in terms of their rhythm. Folsom Prison Blues is mournful and regretful. I Shot the Sheriff is a bouncy fun melody that makes you want to do another bong hit and ask for the Doritos. El Paso is a slow cowboy ballad. None of those songs amps you up to go fight.
Rammstein does. Danzig does. Gunna does. Wagner does. Judas Priest's Breaking the Law makes you want to do what's on the tin. The 1812 Overture makes you want to repel the Grande Armee.
Too cute by far to say there is no such thing as violent music.
Yes, the fact that you had a badge is an aggravating factor in your crime. As such you should've been held to a higher standard of behavior, instead of attacking people without provocation because you were mad.
And that, mon vieux, is 2-tier justice. If you're not going to lock another type of person up for it, don't lock me up for it.
Uhm, you assaulted the guy. You got off with probation and community service. Count your blessings. You were not on the job. You had no reason to 'restore order' by assaulting the guy. You should have walked away, walked around him, and if you thought there was a crime, called the police.
Now, if you want to talk about having your record expunged once you've completed all of the sentence. I like the "right to be forgotten" they seem to enjoy in Europe.
What was the underlying charge?
"This situation is like Bernie Goetz or Daniel Penny, except no one was hurt."
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
And adopting the name of a Confederate traitor as your nom de guerre here does not speak well of you, Mr. Christy.
Huh? The Lincoln analogy points out that a tragic ending negates anything good that went before. In my situation, there was no tragic ending - the offenders literally danced away from it. And the 'tragedy' beforehand consisted of a guy getting shoved five feet.
Underlying charge? Do you mean for me or for them? For them: I have listed them supra. For me, it was misdemeanor assault.
I have also discussed the historical John Mosby supra.
Here is an old but excellent article that addresses these issues; read the whole thing:
Reclaiming the Subway
Thanks - that is a good one. I passed it on to my lawyers.
Also, here is a good article by my fellow POC John McWhorter:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/opinion/jordan-neely-subway-death.html
“ District Judge Vince Chhabria, an Obama appointee, granted a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Homeland Security from using Medicaid data obtained from 20 states that filed a lawsuit to stop the data sharing.
He went on to write:
“… there is nothing "categorically unlawful" about DHS collecting data from other agencies for immigration enforcement purposes, ICE has had a policy against using Medicaid data for that reason for 12 years.”
So, the executive branch isn’t doing anything illegal, but I’m going to stop them anyway.
You guys still insist that Trump is the head of the branch of govt that poses a threat to The Constitution and democracy.
Must be nice, living in a country where you have no privacy whatsoever.
My privacy isn’t at issue. I’m not getting free healthcare at taxpayer expense and I am not in the country illegally.
So yeah, if you want to receive my tax dollars, you lose a few things. HIPPAA is still in effect. They can’t divulge medical records, but they should provide name, residence, legal status.
True, only criminals need to worry about their privacy. If you have nothing to hide, why not let the government access all your information? /s
They aren’t which is my point, Einstein.
No, I don’t give a flying fluck if an agency tasked with apprehending and detaining illegals uses legal means to identify and find said illegals.
It was perfectly fine until the Obama administration said it wasn’t.
Yes, the 5th Amd precludes an income tax....
Do you make your own license plates too?
I guess that is why you live in the UK.
So, the executive branch isn’t doing anything illegal,
That is not what the quote says.
Then tell me what “not categorically unlawful” means.
It was fine from 2003 until 2013 when the Obama administration handcuffed ICE.
Again, a rule change under Obama is perfectly fine. Trump changing the rule back is the problem.
"Not categorically unlawful" explicitly refers in the above quote to "DHS collecting data from other agencies for immigration enforcement purposes," not _this specific situation._ "Not categorically unlawful" means that there are _some_ situations where that conduct is lawful. Which implies that there are other situations where it is unlawful
So instead of forcing the plaintiffs to make the argument it is not legal, he ruled it might, could be based on an implicit reading of the text.
He then proceeds to slap a PI on the rule that was perfectly fine until Obama Admin changed it in 2013.
About what I expect from judges whose only goal is stop Trump.
No they aren’t. The federal judge is.
Let us know when they access gun records. Watch the hayseeds explode
If they find out about illegal aliens who own guns, I'm down with that, too.
Do gun dealers keep records of illegal alien purchasers? What about lawful alien purchasers?
What gun records?
"Federal records of gun transactions are primarily maintained by licensed gun dealers, not a central government registry. Federal law requires licensed dealers to retain records of firearm sales, but these records are not collected into a searchable national database."
Federal law prohibits a central, searchable registry of gun owners.
Well, kinda: Part of the point of shutting down home based firearms dealers by requiring a separate place of business, was that whenever a firearm dealer shuts down, they have to deliver those records to the BATF. So, they DO gradually accumulate in the government's hands, anyway.
As for whether those records have been made searchable, doing so wouldn't be legal, and we all know the government never, ever breaks the law.
Home based FFLs never did a large volume of business. It's a nothing compared to large, ongoing gun stores.
Whose files also end up with the government if they close.
When I didn’t renew my FFL back in the 90’s I had to send all my 4473’s and the “Bound Book” with names addresses of everything I bought and sold to the ATF, seems it was some PO Box in West VA
Frank
I have been a supporter of Israel since the Munich Olympics when I first gave the subject any thought, because I have believed that Israel would be perfectly willing to live in peace with a peaceful Palestinian state, after all they have have had a peaceful relationship with Egypt and Jordon for quite a while.
But as I have been educating myself on the subject, on TikTok, I recently became aware, and don't mock me for just learning this, that Israel started WWI and WW2:
“All of the conspiracy theories coming out and a lot of evidence behind them — that Israel has been behind World War I, World War II, September 11, October 7 — they allowed all of this stuff to happen. Is this crazy? Like, I had a feeling — I was like, ‘Are they behind every World War?’ Yes. Behind September 11? Absolutely,”
https://nypost.com/2025/08/07/lifestyle/sephora-urged-to-drop-cosmetic-line-after-founders-tiktok-rant/
My grandfather was gassed in WW1, so its personal to me.
I have not found any evidence so far about whether Israel started the Spanish American, Korean, and Vietnamese wars, but I'm still researching it.
You do know that the Jews started King Phillips War, don't you?
Heck, why not claim that King Phillip himself was a Jew?
Once all basis in fact is gone, it is amazing what one can conclude...
Blazing Saddles had Mel Brooks as a Yiddish-speaking Indian.
Further proof!
The Guardian just reported that Laura Loomer has successfully pressured Trump to direct the State Department to stop issuing visas to enable medical care in the U.S. for maimed and starving Gazan children. If that is true, it goes farther to make the U.S. complicit in crimes against humanity than I ever thought I would see. Pure evil.
Let them seek medical care in the UK or France.
Indeed, let them seek medical care in those countries who now say they recognize a Palestinian state.
And which claim to have superior public health systems anyway.
I think he was being sarcastic. Kaz said he did his research on TikTok. The rant is from the beauty influencer whose product is sold by Sephora.
Fair enough -- scary thing is that I have heard the same thing from people who were serious...
If it isn't the fault of the Jews, then it's Trump's fault.
Lots of people facially criticize what Israel does when they really want to criticize Jews as a people, but they have a minimal awareness of how it would come across if they said what they actually think. They don't realize that this means that, in this case, the obfuscation makes them look absolute crazy in blaming Israel for wars that predate Israel's existence.
Israel was a Palestinian state during both those wars. Maybe that had something to do with it.
Don't know much about history...
Nonsense, it was an Ottoman area and then a British protectorate. It was not a Palestinian state. Stop lying.
Is it a lie if you are just stupid?
The funny thing about it is that she attempted to defend herself from charges of antisemitism by using the standard antisemitic line, "You're just using that to shut down criticism of Israel. I never even mentioned Jews."
I'm not any more fond of that sort of reasoning than I am of, ""But I have black friends!" is just the sort of thing a racist would say."
You really want to avoid making these sorts of accusations unfalsifiable. I'm sure there are actually people who aren't antisemites, who don't like the way Israel conducts its war with Hamas. Maybe mostly gullible people who aren't aware that they're getting their news analysis from antisemites, but they're out there.
And it seems that manufacturing intelligence to attack political enemies is a “team sport,” at least according to James Clapper. Kinda like the inevitable reflexively idiotic trolling that tries to deny that the Russian collusion fraud directed by Obama has been irrefutably exposed. It is only one of the, if not the, greatest political scandal in US history, so nothing to see here of course.
https://www.odni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2025/4098-pr-22-25
No one is gonna bite. The Left stays away from real issues.
It is only one of the, if not the, greatest political scandal in US history, so nothing to see here of course.
Our friends on the left are treating it in the same way that they treated Biden's mental deficiencies.
They will pretend it didn't happen until one of two conditions are met:
1) There is no longer any political advantage in keeping the lie going- the value of the lie will decrease as time goes on.
2) They are forced to face that it happened by something that they can no longer ignore, such as criminal convictions.
When either condition is met, they will begrudgingly admit that it happened but that it doesn't matter anymore.
I believe you're thinking of Trump's services to Putin. They didn't happen and it's good that they happened.
I believe you're thinking of Trump's services to Putin.
Incorrect.
"So many Allied soldiers are dying, Nazi soldiers dying. We need to stop and let them keep what they have where they are. Then we will have peace!"
Chamberlain: I tried that!
It seems that the bot may actually just be Tulsi Gabbard, since her made up words are just being reposted here. Of course, producing intelligence estimates is a team sport. Nobody manufactured any intelligence at all, and nobody said anything about doing so.
“This is one project that has to be a team sport.“ written by DNI James Clapper. In the declassified email quoted in the release. That provides a link to the declassified document.
I’ve noted it before and I guess have to again. I know you’re a lying asshole crazy Dave, but do you have to be such a stupid lying asshole?
Yes, and the "this" by Clapper referred to producing an intelligence assessment. But Tulsi (and hence you) fabricated the quote that he said "manufacturing intelligence" was a team sport.
No crazy lying asshole. NSA personnel noted that they “aren’t fully comfortable saying that they have had enough time to review all of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments.” How did DNI Clapper respond? “We may have to compromise on our ‘normal’ modalities” and “more time is not negotiable.” “This” referred to a corruption of the intelligence process.
And actually Clapper is right. Seditious conspiracies are team sports.
What was the next sentence after that? "To be clear, I am not saying that we disagree substantively"
How did DNI Clapper respond? “We may have to compromise on our ‘normal’ modalities” and “more time is not negotiable.”
Yes. Clapper was saying that time was of the essence. At no point did he say anything about "corruption" or "manufacturing" anything, and in fact no such events occurred, as everyone agrees. Every word of the ICA was true.
Wow. The lying bullshit just doesn’t stop with you. The comment, “This is one project that has to be a team sport,“ directly follows the corrupt hack’s direction to “compromise ‘normal modalities.” There is no next sentence. The team sport comment ends the exchange.
And, crazy Dave, it must be noted that you added the quotes to “manufactured intelligence.” Because as noted elsewhere, you’re just not an honest guy. And you’re stupid. And a bit of an asshole. The corruption and fabrication of intelligence is an obvious conclusion in the context of this email and shitload of other incriminating declassified documents you pretend don’t exist. Well, obvious to anyone but a stupid lying asshole I suppose.
The person who programmed the bot might want to look up what the word "modality" means before he embarrasses himself any further.
And, crazy Dave, it must be noted that you added the quotes to “manufactured intelligence.”
Yes. Adding quotes around something is what one does when one quotes that thing.
I correctly quoted Clapper. You added the quotes and INCORRECTLY purported to quote me. That would be NY Times level fake journalism if it happened in one of their articles. Are you auditioning for a job?
It must also be noted that DNI Clapper never writes “To be clear, I am not saying that we disagree substantively" in the email exchange at all. That’s pure crazy Dave bullshit. Because (need it be said again?) he seems to really like lying. And he’s bad at it. Because he’s stupid.
It must also be noted that DNI Clapper never writes “To be clear, I am not saying that we disagree substantively" in the email exchange at all.
No, you fucking retard, Mike Rogers, the guy you were quoting, said that.
WTF? You really are crazy. Don’t think Clapper can crazy his way out of this though. But I’m not playing this insane game anymore with a deranged ass like you. Anyone who’s interested can read the declassified email for themselves.
And for the record, I was quoting Clapper crazy man.
For the record, you were quoting Rogers. You wrote:
NSA personnel noted that they “aren’t fully comfortable saying that they have had enough time to review all of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments.”
That is a quote from Rogers, and his very next sentence is what I said his very next sentence was: "To be clear, I am not saying that we disagree substantively," because of course nobody did disagree substantively, because the findings were true.
That, fucking moron, was simply to set up the context for Clapper's response after you challenged and misrepresented both the declassified email and my comment. The point was that DNI Clapper characterized the corrupt fabrication of intelligence ordered by Obama as a "team sport." That was the relevant quote you gaslighting ass.
No; the point is that everyone agrees that the intelligence was 100% accurate, neither fabricated nor corrupt, and the Rogers quote helps provide the context showing that, and the "team sport" was describing that accurate, valid, intelligence assessment.
"Everyone" being gaslighting asses like crazy Dave. And probably the staff at The NY Times. But that's kind of redundant. Every other sane, reasonably intelligent and informed person, not so much.
But, as noted, above crazy Dave, your gaslighting bullshit has gone on long enough. Anyone interesting in confirming crazy Dave's bullshitting gaslighting substance is free to consult the press release and underlying declassified emails it quotes and summarizes, and links to. I'll even repost that link as well as for any idiots like crazy Dave who may not understand what a link is:
https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-Top-Secret-DNI-Clapper-Email-Politicized-Jan-2017-ICA-Aug2025.pdf
Now crazy Dave, please fuck off and do whatever it is you do. I really don't care what that is.
And to be honest, David, I don't like responding to your comments. I don't take a great deal of pleasure embarrassing anyone. Please stop digging this stupid hole you're in.
And to be honest, David, I don't like responding to your comments.
I understand that "you" don't like responding to people who are smarter and more honest than you and call you on your bullshit. To be fair, that's pretty much everyone.
I’m all for helping the insane and handicapped but whoever’s watching you needs to monitor your online time a little better. You need a little time out.
"And actually Clapper is right. Seditious conspiracies are team sports."
The "seditious conspiracy" canard again, Riva? Now please try to answer the specific questions I posed on Monday about application of 18 U.S.C. § 2384 to your fanciful "seditious conspiracy":
Who do you claim conspired to use force or levy war against the Government of the United States? Who do you claim conspired to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States? Who do you claim conspired to use force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof? When was any such conspiracy formed? What was the specific conspiratorial objective? Which conspirator(s) committed any overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiratorial objective? When did each such overt act occur?
Who do you claim conspired to use force or levy war against the Government of the United States?
Who do you claim conspired to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States?
Who do you claim conspired to use force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof?
When was any such conspiracy formed?
What was the specific conspiratorial objective?
Which conspirator(s) committed any overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiratorial objective?
When did each such overt act occur?
In the entire record of the disgusting Russian collusion fraud conspiracy implementation and coverup, I dare say we can find a few acts of "force" with the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2384 to get some indictments out of a grand jury. But if it makes you feel better we can change it to, "conspiracies, seditious or otherwise, are team sports." And, again NG, you would do better to educate yourself on the facts before spouting off on the law. Of course, regardless of potential criminal charges, it is equally, if not more important to expose this corruption to the light of day so democrats can never abuse power like this again.
In other words, you've got bupkis, but lack the integrity to admit it.
The intended use of force as a conspiratorial objective is a sine qua non of 18 U.S.C. § 2384 An isolated use of force or two as part of an alleged overt act (which you cavil about, but still haven't identified) is insufficient.
Who do you claim conspired to use force or levy war against the Government of the United States. to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or to use force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof?
Rule 7(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires, inter alia, that "The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . ." (Emphasis added.) In the case of a seditious conspiracy indictment, identification of two or more conspirators and a statement of the conspiratorial objective are part of such essential facts. If none of these is identified in the indictment, it should be dismissed on a defense motion.
Or is the finding and prompt dismissal of an insufficient charging instrument perhaps what you are hoping for, Riva?
Are you and crazy Dave roommates at the asylum?
Riva, I know nothing of David Nieporent except for his comments on this blog. He and I don't always agree, but he has earned my respect as someone who knows what he is writing about.
For all your insults, evasions and ad hominem attacks, you are unfit to shine David's shoes.
My ad hominem attacks? I counter punch to deranged gaslighters like crazy Dave. If he were just a deranged gaslighter, i’d just point that out. And here, he has excelled himself, directly misrepresenting both me and the content of the declassified email at issue.
But his repulsive addiction to sick dehumanization rhetoric earns that asshole every insult and more. You seem to have a problem with facts, both in the context of the Russian collusion fraud and in reading these comments. You do love your dicta though, and just generally irrelevant case law.
Bomb thrower weirdly unable to read a comment fully before replying tries to get in the arena with people who actually practice law.
Calls it counterpunching.
Seems constantly angry and miserable. Says he doesn't like replying.
And yet...
Riva's a small sad thing, really.
What is this? Tag team trolling? All my comments were accurate. Crazy Dave misrepresented my comments and misrepresented and misquoted the declassified email at issue. You might want to read it for yourself before engaging in more of your bullshit gaslighting, little communist girl that never smiled. You clowns certainly are afraid of the facts though, if this trollnado is any indication.
And I said I don't like replying to the asshole crazy Dave, to be clear. Perhaps you couldn't tell because I hide it so well but I really don't like pricks like him who resort to repugnant vile dehumanizing rhetoric. Crazy Dave is an ass, but I don't label him an "it" like the repulsive left likes to do to opponents.
Riva, you seem quite fond of throwing around the word "gaslighting." Has anything that David, Sarcastr0 and/or I have said in these comments led you to question your own sanity, memories, or perception of reality?
No but it reaffirms my initial observation that trolling is a team sport, just like the fabrication of intelligence in furtherance of the Russian collusion fraud conspiracy and coverup.
Too many of the folks in this thread are greyed out for me to get a decent feeling for what is being discussed. Given that David and NG have worthwhile things to say, I briefly considered un-muting the others. Then I reconsidered and had a drink instead...
I’m sure that’s not a rare occurrence for you.
Question: In a hypothetical scenario where every delegated power was removed from the federal government’s jurisdiction, what—if anything—would it still have the constitutional authority to do?
I’m interested in answers grounded in constitutional text, historical practice, or case law, but broader philosophical perspectives are welcome too.
What do you mean by "every delegated power"? You seem to be asking us to use the Constitution's text to explain what powers the US federal government would have in the absence of the federal constitution.
Exactly. Presumably, nothing, as we follow the principle the government only has powers explicitely granted to it, and none others.
What that means has been stretched by power mongers wildly over the centuries, but there is no federal government as an entity sans the Constitution.
There are, though, still the united states as in the several states, and the people.
Europe follows the principles of existing governmental entities of the thugs best able to kill their political enemies. It's been a sordid path of chaining the government, but it still exists as their lord and master, independent and above the people, "granting" them rights.
Well, I assume that if you removed the N&P power as part of this purge, you'd just dissolve the government, there wouldn't be anything left.
But I'm not a big fan of the idea that the federal government has undelegated powers.
Does this question relate to the recent Richard Primus book on enumeration and federal power, which advances the thesis that the federal government DOES have powers in excess of those delegated?
It is an interesting thought experiment: If you claim the federal government has unenumerated powers, presumably they'd be whatever was left over after you removed all the enumerated ones. But if you removed all the enumerated powers, there wouldn't be any government left to HAVE unenumerated powers; No taxation, no spending, no law making...
Are you asking if Congress repealed all statuary grants of authority to the Executive (and itself and the Judiciary), what could they still do? Because if you're also removing the grants of authority in the Constitution itself, the answer is nothing.
If the first, then it is a interesting question. You see something similar at state level sometimes where the legislature starts stripping power from governors controlled by the other party.
Keldonric — Your passive-voiced hypothetical left out something you ought to add back in: the subject which accomplished the object to remove the government powers. Who was it? Answer that and answers to all your other questions follow.
One logical supposition would be that the subject which accomplished the removal must have been the subject which accomplished the initial empowerment—the jointly sovereign People of the United States.
Another answer might be that the removal was accomplished by a rival for the People's sovereignty. Then you would have to know something about the rival to get your answers.
However, if you persist in mistaken belief that the Constitution is what empowered government, then you are destined to remain baffled in terms of law, precedent, history, and philosophy. But you will enjoy the consolation of being baffled among plentiful company.
Stephen, You use "jointly sovereign People of the United States" the way that Lenin used the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Both refer to a mythical entity that justifies the regime in power.
Nico — Nope. I mostly posit the joint popular sovereign as a power capable to constrain an existing government. And as the only power with practical capacity to vindicate privately-held rights against government usurpation. But once again, those are not my ideas. They are the founders' ideas.
After reading my commentary, what would inspire you to try to slur it as Leninism?
Stephen, It was not a slur; nor was it meant as an insult. It was an analogy. For you "jointly sovereign People" has become a slogan just as Lenin's phrase is a double entendre slogan based on the use of a possessive clause. In both instances, the slogan is shorthand, used in lieu of a actual argument.
But your answer does remind me that in the time of the founders, that power of the people was understood to include the right of the governed literally to take up arms against the government authorities. I doubt that it what you advocate.
Nico — Nonsense again. But note, again, you are arguing with the founders, not with me.
And of course the founders thought themselves justified to overthrow British rule by force, and to make that forceful victory the basis of the nation's joint popular sovereignty. It's all explicit in founding era documents, which I have quoted.
I hear lots of denials, and nary a substantive argument to call into question any of those quotations. Without challenging you to do what no one else has been willing to try either, why not tell me why you do not like James Wilson's interpretation of American sovereignty.
Watched Lioness over the last few days. I recommend it. And like other Taylor Sheridan creations, he gives conservatives a fair voice.
One of my favorite storylines was when a U.S. congresswoman was abducted by a cartel. The agencies wanted a big show in Mexico to send a message of what will happen to those who screw with the U.S.
In a meeting discussing the impact of raiding Mexico, they are disappointed at what has transpired. Public awareness of the kidnapping and rescue was at 38%. They believe the media has intentionally suppressed the story because they didn’t want to harm the administration in an election year.
This was written and filmed long before Biden’s debate. Life imitating art.
As to the DoJ employee arrested and fired for throwing a Subway sandwich at the cops, what precludes him claiming he was drunk and going through the Federal Govt's EA program?
I've never been a Federal employee, but those who are tell me that they could "show up to work drunk" and not get fired. And he was off duty...
And on a serious basis, I wonder if he was, but that is a different issue.
I suspect nothing precludes him from claiming that, but neither having an addiction nor participating in an employee assistance program would actually protect him from being fired for assaulting a police officer.
Alcoholic Blackout -- it is real, I've dealt with a lot of kids in college who genuinely had no memory of what they said and did.
So what?
For once, but ideally consistently, please try to think through what you are trying to say rather than just posting a quarter-baked thought that might have some tangential relationship to the topic at hand.
I don't see what part of this is not clear.
It is notoriously difficult to fire Federal employees. BC the only thing you could fire them for was not showing up for work, and now even that is difficult.
The Employee Assistance programs are so extensive that even if an employee showed up to work drunk -- clearly and admittedly drunk -- all the employee has to do is "admit" to a drinking problem and is instantly fireproof. And this was at midnight, some 7 hours after the end of work hours.
See NIAAA/NIH on Alcohol Blackouts: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/interrupted-memories-alcohol-induced-blackouts
So what's Bondi gonna do if the perp says "I have no memory of throwing that sandwich at that cop -- maybe I have a drinking problem." There is no way for management to prove that he doesn't have a drinking problem, even if he has never drunk (maybe it was his first time drinking) and all he has to do is tell all the voodoo scientists "you're right, alcohol is bad, thank you for curing me" and he is fireproof.
It's an ADA violation if they try to do anything to him.
I'm not saying this is right, only that it is.
Like most of your thinking, your theory here is unclear. You haven't pointed to any law, policy or contract clause that would protect this guy.
Literally none of that is how any of this works.
or maybe what you did, lucky for you
I imagine that most people who deal with you wish to have no memory of those dealings.
Too many of the folks in this thread are greyed out for me to get a decent feeling for what is being discussed. Given that David has worthwhile things to say, I briefly considered un-muting the others. Then I reconsidered and had a drink instead...
Gerrymandering is one thing, but when Gavin Newsome comes out and says he wishes to redistrict to eliminate all Republican seats, at what point does that violate the 15th Amendment?
Never. And under Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), federal courts would not have much jurisdiction to review it for other reasons either. It would just be yet another example of leftist states being poorly governed hellholes.
Have you guys considered democracy as a form of government?
Have you considered that you act and sound an awful lot like Dr. Ed 2?
Let me spell it out for you:
Gerrymandering means that politicians choose the electorate instead of the other way around. It's an affront to any democratic system of government that deserves the name. In a proper democracy it is outlawed. The fact that it is legal in the US casts serious doubt on the idea that the US is a democracy.
"Congressional redistricting involves the drawing of district boundaries from which voters elect their representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives.1 Prior to the 1960s, court challenges to redistricting plans were generally considered to present non-justiciable political questions that were most appropriately addressed by the political branches of government, not the judiciary.2 However, in 1962, in the landmark case of Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court held that a constitutional challenge to a redistricting plan is not a political question and is justiciable.3 Since then, in a series of cases and evolving jurisprudence, the U.S. Court has issued rulings that have significantly shaped how congressional districts are drawn. " Rather than make things clear the courts have only muddied the water. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44798
A big part of that is that the courts interpreted the VRA to mandate racial gerrymandering, which makes at the same time prohibiting gerrymandering hard to pull off.
The other problem is that the Constitution did not expressly prohibit the practice, so the courts getting involved requires them to make up a lot of stuff as they go along, rather than having any constitutional text to guide their actions.
For example, some courts bought into a theory requiring political parties to win in proportion to their membership. That's just a variant of politicians choosing voters. It shouldn't be a constitutional rule.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. ---- Congrats on the upcoming nullification of this clause.
Ever noticed that all your opinions about voting side with narrowing who gets to vote, and who gets an effective voice in government?
The problem is that, outside the context of race, it's never considered disenfranchising that you happen to be in the minority, and thus won't get your way. Dem's the breaks, the whole point of majority rule is that the majority, you know, rules.
As that podcast I linked to points out, in the context of race, but only race, the courts are in effect requiring something sort of like proportional representation, despite the Supreme court having ruled that proportional representation isn't actually required.
It literally says protected class. That's a limited set.
But even were that not true, you advocate for this law to be interpreted such that it would never come up.
That shows you're wrong.
the courts are in effect requiring something sort of like proportional representation And here you're just wrong on the facts. There is nothing like proportional representation going on with districts right now, as you well know.
The twists you will perform such that the end state is white people get to win all the things.
I'm a white guy, and this kind of grasping is shameful.
No, I'd interpret the VRA to prohibit the sorts of abuses which triggered enacting it in the first place: Actual efforts to disenfranchise, which is to say, to keep people from voting.
Minorities in a democracy routinely find voting futile, because they're minorities, and not enough people agree with them for them to win elections. This isn't disenfranchisement, it doesn't implicate voting rights.
I don't like gerrymandering for any reason, racial, political, incumbent protection, you name it. But we're never going to get rid of gerrymandering at the same time as mandating it, we need to quit gerrymandering cold turkey.
Yeah, I don't like gerrymandering either. I also don't like pretending that a history of purposeful racial disenfranchisement didn't exist, and isn't still sometimes showing up in GOP election policy pushes. (see Thomas Hofeller)
You really really need to look into the longstanding history of state-level voting policies in this country, and why the VRA was needed.
Your understanding of the Jim Crow era has always been super weird so you can pretend de facto and structural racial disparities don't exist. Thus you can claim all the policies aimed at those real-life evils are actually anti-whit oppression.
"so you can pretend de facto and structural racial disparities don't exist."
I don't need to pretend that they don't exist, because the only sort of disparity that's actually unconstitutional is disparity of rights. Disparity of everything else is just life, outside of some Harrison Bergeron nightmare.
And because equal protection of the law is the highest law of the land, not only is equality of rights all people are actually entitled to, it is all government can lawfully provide, because any effort to erase your disparities that linger after equal rights are provided is an EPC violation.
I agree that it is a problem, and I would much prefer a system of proportional representation. One of the problems with being one of the earliest constitutional democracies, and having our constitution remain at least nominally in force for over two centuries, is that younger democracies were able to learn from our mistakes, where we're kind of locked in.
That's part of why I advocate that we hold a new constitutional convention. I actually doubt I'll like the result as much as I like the current Constitution, at least in some regards, but maybe we'd end up actually FOLLOWING a new one again, and it would let us fix some mistakes like, yes, the EC, or first past the post single member districts.
A basic problem we've got here, that I expect the Netherlands don't have, is that our constitution was written to create a relatively weak, very limited federal government, with most authority over day to day life retained by state governments. But we now have a very powerful central government, instead for historical reasons.
You can't run a powerful central government under a limited federal government constitution, and staff it with honest people, because honest people wouldn't do that sort of thing after swearing an oath to follow that constitution.
I'm not saying that countries that have constitutions that genuinely authorize modern regulatory states are guaranteed to be less corrupt, obviously not. But the possibility at least exists for them to not be terribly corrupt, while the disconnect between the sort of government we have, and the sort the Constitution honestly read authorizes, is so huge that non-corrupt government isn't even on the table.
"casts serious doubt on the idea that the US is a democracy."
Give it a rest. The term was coined here in 1812, when Holland was ruled by Louis Napoleon and we already had a thriving democracy.
We were the first democracy since the early Roman Republic, and built the most successful state in modern history on our imperfect democracy.
Lecture on democracy from effete Euros is a laugh.
Martin, In every country with voting, lines are drawn. In all cases lines are arbitrary. In your new country there are "rotten boroughs." You are simply playing naivté as a form of sophistry OR you don't actually know what a democracy is.
Setting aside that I'm pretty sure he has said he's back in the Netherlands, your underlying claim is not true. Some countries use proportional representation and have no districts/lines at all.
Seems pretty orthogonal to how the state is governed. Maybe you can elaborate on what you think the relationship is, though?
Only when plaintiffs convince a judge that there was a racial motive, and maybe not even then because the discrimination is against white people.
CONGRESS wrote the drug schedule, e.g. making Marijuana a Schedule I drug.
How can Trump reclassify it as Schedule III???
Not ask Congress to do so, but to do it himself???
Well, he could come out fervently in favor of stricter penalties for marijuana. Then the Dems would reflexively oppose him and demand federal legalization.
Reading 21 U.S.C. §812(c) carefully gives the answer. Note the word "initial".
So you don't like like it when a president usurps for himself powers delegated to the Legislative, eh?
The Attorney General can make changes to the schedule, per 21 U.S.C. §811(a)
So, it's been delegated by the legislature to the executive.
"§811. Authority and criteria for classification of substances (a) Rules and regulations of Attorney General; hearing The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e), the Attorney General may by rule-
(1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he-
(A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and
(B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or
(2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule."
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title21-section811&num=0&edition=prelim
Serious questions: how does this provision interact with the Major Questions Doctrine?
I think it's great if Trump can do this, but seems like the kind of thing that the Supreme Court has been skeptical of lately.
I don't know the details of the quoted law, but if it lets the executive re-schedule drugs differently than the law initially specified, that would seem to be that.
The only major questions issue w.r.t. drugs would seem to be government banning alcohol, which has a whole separate constitutional history, so aside from explicit on-point legislation, no regulatory busibodies.
And probably not even then, given two ammendments were needed to address it.
One could argue the same for smoking, but even then, if it's that bad, supine, cowardly Congress should address it directly.
The Attorney General is not authorized to act unilaterally. Removal or reclassification of a controlled substance is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, per 21 U.S.C. § 811(a):
Rules of the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the rulemaking procedures prescribed by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5. Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on his own motion, (2) at the request of the Secretary, or (3) on the petition of any interested party.
See my reply to hobie
Congress wrote the rules for classifying a drug to schedule one. They did not specify all the drugs on that schedule. One of the criteria is the drug must have no medicinal purpose. "All" Trump has to do is get the agency to admit the truth, that there ARE medical uses for the devil weed, and Bob's your uncle.
No, all he has to do is ask the AG to reclassify it.
No, because the president still isn't a king and has to follow the law. The AG can only reclassify it if the appropriate findings are made.
...and in the case of fudged crime stats in DC: "The District of Columbia has quietly settled a lawsuit from a sergeant who accused Metropolitan Police Department leaders of misclassifying offenses to deflate the district's crime statistics, court records obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show. Police brass repeatedly told officers to downgrade theft cases, knife attacks, and violent assaults to lesser offenses, according to internal MPD emails, depositions, and phone call transcripts the Free Beacon reviewed." https://freebeacon.com/crime/a-dc-police-sergeant-exposed-her-superiors-for-misclassifying-crimes-to-make-stats-look-low-the-city-just-quietly-settled-her-lawsuit/
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Evidently these were not exclusive choices.
That Freebeacon thing could be a masterclass in propaganda.
1) Virtually all lawsuits are "quietly settled." So describing it that way has no purpose but to insinuate something that there's no evidence of. 2) Note that the article doesn't say what the settlement was, so again it's attempting to insinuate something — in this case, that the city admitted her allegations were true. The settlement could've been "The plaintiff gets a nuisance payout," and it almost certainly contained no admissions. 3) The article tries to link this to claims that the city's lower crime statistics now are unreliable, but this lawsuit was filed in 2020, which means it applies to years before that, not anything recent. (It also fails to put it into context. Like, was there ever a time when police departments didn't try to minimize crime statistics to make themselves look better? Without showing that this is happening more now, it doesn't affect the discussion of trends.)
I'm old enough to remember when people would regularly blog on VC about the importance of academic freedom. I wonder what they would make of this gem out of Alabama: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.192804/gov.uscourts.alnd.192804.79.0.pdf
Notwithstanding what other circuits have said, the court reads our Circuit’s precedent as strongly suggesting that the Professors’ in-class instruction constitutes government speech. (...) After review, the court concludes (in a matter that would be one of first impression if decided by our Circuit) that the Professors were not speaking as private citizens while teaching in their respective classrooms. But, as will be seen, even putting aside this conclusion, Plaintiffs’ claims still fail. First, even if Plaintiffs’ in-class teaching is not government speech, they still lose at step two of the Pickering/Connick balancing test. And second, as discussed later in this opinion, notwithstanding Garcetti, the Professors cannot steer around this circuit’s Bishop decision. The court addresses those points below.
This paragraph has a pretty eye-watering footnote too:
Keyishian discussed the dangers of a pall of orthodoxy being cast on universities by way of loyalty oath requirements. 385 U.S. at 603. A broad expansion of professor rights in the classroom would risk running headlong into a different type of pall of orthodoxy wherein professors require (or indoctrinate) their students to assent to their views. Granting professors a special exception from the government-speech rule would diminish a university’s (and, here, the Board’s) ability to ensure courses serve the educational purpose for which the public pays.
What do you find "eye-watering" there? The idea that working for the government should mean you have to obey basic laws promulgated by the government that prevent the government from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, religion and so forth?
I'm shocked, shocked, that one of the most prolific Trumpists on this blog does not believe in academic freedom. /s
As usual, you are making things up rather than answering a simple question.
Academic freedom has never extended to protect violating civil rights.
SB 129 prohibits speech, not conduct. If the law were applied to private schools, do you think it would survive a First Amendment challenge?
As the ruling summarizes SB 129, it says various government employees and entities must not:
(1) Sponsor any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or maintain any office, physical location, or department that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, as defined in Section 41-1-90. (2) Direct or compel a student, employee, or contractor to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to a divisive concept. (3) Require its students, employees, or contractors to attend or participate in any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or any training, orientation, or course work that advocates for or requires assent to a divisive concept. (4) Require a student, employee, or contractor to share his or her personal point of view on any divisive concept outside of an academic setting, as provided in Section 41-1-93(3)b. (5) Require its students, employees, or contractors to participate, as part of any required curriculum or mandatory professional training, in an activity that involves lobbying at the state or local level for legislation related to a divisive concept. (6) Penalize or discriminate against a student, employee, or contractor on the basis of his or her refusal to support, believe, endorse, embrace, confess, or otherwise assent to a divisive concept or diversity statement. (7) Condition enrollment or attendance in a class, training, or orientation solely on the basis of race or color. (8) Authorize or expend funding, or apply for or accept a grant, federal funding, or private funding, for the purpose of compelling assent to any divisive concept or any other purpose prohibited in this act, provided that such funding may be provided to student, faculty, or staff organizations or associations.
The law defines "divisive concepts" to be various expressions of race, religious, ethnic, sex, etc. superiority or preference.
Specifically which of those proscribed activities do you believe are speech rather than conduct?
"Require its students, employees, or contractors to attend or participate in [...] course work that advocates for [...] a divisive concept." Later in the legislation it states it is permissible to teach "any divisive concept in an objective manner and without endorsement."
So, it is not permissible to teach a divisive concept in any other manner. But, teaching a divisive concept is speech, whether it is done with or without endorsement.
You think "course work" is what the teacher says?
It might help if you read what you are cutting into shreds BEFORE you take out all the context that illustrated the intention.
For example, one of the leading examples in the lawsuit was that a professor wanted to grade her students in whether they attended a particular sit-in. Some students complained, and university administrator pointed out that the students had a point. That's the kind of prohibited "course work that advocates for [...] a divisive concept."
Yes, what the professor says is part of the "course work." See for example Professor Patton's testimony detailed in the opinion.
The opinion began by concluding speech is implicated. The law survived only because the court held it was government speech.
(apologies on not removing all the line breaks from the quoted material)
If we were to take your definition of academic freedom seriously, it would be prohibited by the titles of nobility clause...
Part of the playbook, Martin. First you go after the press, then the academics, then the judiciary. Demonize some minorities. Then sprinkle in some marshal law here and there. Of course, you Europeans have already lived through this, but we haven't...so back off and let us have our chance at it.
Europeans didn't learn from it, though, as evidenced by censorship. And a classic minority hatred is rearing its ugly head.
The AAUPs 1915 statement on academic freedom included the academic freedom rights of STUDENTS which essentially is what the court is recognizing here.
Of course the AAUP has now become a union, affiliated with the AFT, so, well....
I noted this headline from the Wall Street Journal. "Nobody’s Buying Homes, Nobody’s Switching Jobs—and America’s Mobility Is Stalling". Unfortunately the article is paywalled and I did not get a chance to read it but the headline alone is disturbing and on financial matters I pay attention to what the WSJ says. We may not be living in the period when America is great again but rather in the period of its decline. America has again plateaued and Trump's superficial campaign will not change the fact that the country is stagnating.
Who is this "nobody" they speak of?
He's "Not Me"'s from "Family Circus" Evil Twin
That's a good question. Some of my young coworkers have bought homes. My group is actively hiring, mostly experienced hires, although we have rather low turnover once people start. A few candidates have declined to join because we want people to work from the office by default, but most are fine with it.
The median age of home buyers is up to 56 (up from 31 40-ish years ago), so while there are definitely some young people buying homes, they're starting to turn into anecdotes rather than statistics.
Curious what your cite is for that? I found a number of articles with wildly varying stats. This one says 36 for first time buyers and 48 for repeat buyers.
https://wolfstreet.com/2025/08/11/average-age-of-first-time-home-buyers-and-how-it-changed-over-the-past-25-years/
This one says 35 for first time buyers and 58 for repeat buyers.
https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-median-homebuyer-age-is-now-so-old/
People with lots of equity can move. The low end of the market is stalled.
Part of the problem, I think, is that building codes have been used to prohibit building cheap "starter" homes, in an effort to drive up property tax revenues. This cuts off the bottom rung of the home ownership ladder.
I ran into that myself in the late 90's, when I decided to build my own home, and while I'd have been happy building a micro-home with a big garage, or perhaps a pole barn with a loft to live in, the local building code required a minimum of 1,600 square feet. Building a copy of the house my parents had raise 3 children in would be illegal...
I believe the Institute for Justice just won a case knocking down such restrictions.
Another problem I've seen locally, is that in the 2008 housing crash, mortgage companies ended up in possession of a lot of homes that were no longer worth what was owed on them, and if they'd sold them, or even put them on the market at a sellable price, they'd have ended up underwater and been legally mandated to shut down.
So they kept them at unrealistic prices, and as unoccupied houses do, they deteriorated. I lost track of how many houses I encountered house hunting around 2010-11, which looked good on paper, but when you visited them you found them uninhabitable due to the sort of thing an occupied house was safe from; Burst pipes, vagrants living in them, one house had been converted to a meth lab, and the criminals had amused themselves punching holes in the walls.
The US housing stock shrank considerably in those years, especially the lower priced older houses.
Regulators need to be more aggressive imposing mark-to-market rules.
Here you go: https://www.wsj.com/economy/american-job-housing-economic-dynamism-d56ef8fc?st=AEwb3L&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thanks you. I do appreciate this.
yw
I read the article, and it's a big nothing. Nothing has changed from last year, five years ago, decades ago. It's as it always has been. It's just one of these manufactured doom and gloom articles.
WSJ on its way to becoming the Daily Mail.
This does seems to be have been a problem for a while and it is often encapsulated by the phrase "people expect to do less well than their parents" The problem here is that there seems to be little being done to address the problem. I often hear laments on this site about why young people look so fondly at socialism, well part of that may be capitalism is not really doing much for them right now.
That's actually kind of funny, as they may look fondly at socialism because they can't have things, like a house and a high wage, neither of which are features of socialism.
But if capitalism isn't benefiting you, "get evenism" starts looking really nice.
The wealthy are secure when the poor own things -- John Hancock knew that which is why Shay's Rebellion ended when he became Governor again. Jefferson really understood this. Royal Governor Wentworth did, and like Nova Scotia, New Hampshire would have remained loyal to the crown if New Hampshire hadn't been on both sides of it.
An interesting poll: https://www.themidwesterner.news/2025/08/shock-poll-23-of-conservative-new-york-voters-back-socialist-mayor-candidate-zohran-mamdani/
If I were a NYC voter, I'd vote for Mamdani instead of the others -- you have to throw a few pennies to the not-so-rich in order to get them to have a self interest in helping the rich.
Let's take the mASSgop -- after having gotten the MA income tax lowered back to 5%, they now want to lower it to 4% -- while leaving the sales tax at the inflated rate of 6.25%.
The MA median individual income is 56K -- that's $2,700 less the deduction for rent, so we're talking a $540 savings while still paying $3,640 in sales tax. Conversely, the "millionaires tax" is a 4% surcharge on the underlying 5% tax -- hence it goes from 9% to 8% and 1% of $1M is $10,000.
What people forget is that Proposition 2.5 (limit on real estate taxes) passed in 1980 because it included auto excise taxes. Hence instead of being charged more than some of their clunkers were worth, their annual car tax dropped to 2.5% of the CURRENT value of the vehicle.
The then-young Baby Boomers, who didn't own a house and who then didn't have much money to begin with, had a vested interest in supporting Prop 2.5 -- something that the mASSgop doesn't understand...
Socialism is not great at providing high wages, but it's pretty good at providing housing.
I suspect a lot of young people would be very happy with northern European style social democracy. High end wages are much lower than in the US, median wages adjusted for cost of living look comparable or possibly even better, and low end wages are much better. There's a much better safety net for when things go wrong, and much less policy that favors their parents' generation over them.
And if they're looking at socialism as an attractive alternative to capitalism, that's probably a good sign that the US version of capitalism isn't working very well for them.
One factor that seems like it actually has teeth is the massive difference in mortgage rates from 4+ years ago. Someone who bought back in that era will probably pay ~3 more points these days, which back of the napkin translates to about a 40% higher payment on a 30-year fixed. And that assumes they can and do transfer all their equity from the old house into the new one.
No idea exactly how much of a cooling effect that has on moving around, but it can't be zero.
Yeah, we'd have to be nuts to give up our current (~3%) mortgage rate, unless we downsized so seriously that only much smaller loan, if any, were needed. We nominally have a lot of equity, but all the houses we'd buy are up, too.
I talked to a real estate agent in the spring and he said this year is different.
I recently cited the Second Circuit's decision in the "Deflategate" case upholding the NFL Commissioner's authority to act as arbitrator between his own organization and a player. This week the same court came to the opposite decision in an appeal by coaches alleging racial discrimination:
First, the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision fails to provide an independent arbitral forum for bilateral dispute resolution. A basic assumption of “traditional arbitral practice” and “the norm of bilateral arbitration as our precedents conceive of it” is that even while arbitration is a matter of contract, an arbitral forum is an independent forum that is separate from the parties to the dispute.
The court distinguishes its previous decision in a footnote:
Finally, it is important to note that our opinion does not conflict with our decision in Nat'l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat'l Football League Players Ass'n, 820 F.3d 527 (2d Cir. 2016). There, we conducted a “very limited” review of an arbitration award under the Labor Management Relations Act, not the FAA. Id. at 536, 545 n.13 (quoting Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509 (2001)). The rights at issue in Nat'l Football League Mgmt. Council were contractual, not federal statutory rights, and they were subject to arbitration according to the terms of a collectively bargained for arbitration agreement.
I forgot the link:
Flores v. N.Y. Football Giants, et al., 23-1185-cv (2nd Cir. 2025) https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fe6c9747-d6cc-4d28-b6c6-a47a0620944b/1/doc/23-1185_opn.pdf
(Unfortunately that looks like a temporary link. It's what the site gave me.)
There are times I wonder how we possibly got to, well, this point as a country. And then I see the exchange between Dr. Ed (because, of course) and Michael P. above regarding Governor Newsom and the proposed gerrymandering in California.
Those dastardly Democrats! It must be illegal! (Now, in fairness, I should say that Michael P. did, in fact, note that it wouldn't be illegal before going to the usual substance-free shot that this is another example of leftist perfidy, although I think he used the term "hellhole").
So why this? Because it's just one of so many examples of two things I keep seeing-
1. People that live in alternate realities. 2. People that are so invested in demonizing "the other" that they can't be bothered to understand what is actually happening.
Here's the thing. It is my genuine belief that most (MOST) Americans of good faith don't want gerrymandering. We don't want the politicians to pick the voters. Most of us (that aren't in office currently) would support a system that removes redistricting from the partisan process (aka, gerrymandering). Don't get me wrong- a lot of you will instinctively be like, "That's hard! No unilateral disarmament!" But there are actual solutions- go on, you can look.
So why don't we have solutions? Because so many of you have drunk the kool-aid. It's not about improving the country, or the system. You've become invested in a team, like a fan. And even when your team sucks, it's still your team. So when your team tells you, "We need to gerrymander in order to beat State U!" you just nod in approval. But when you hear, "State U is going to gerrymander to beat us!" you get outraged at the unfairness. But never do you stop to think ... wait, how about we just get rid of it completely and let all of us pick who we want, instead of letting State U and U State pick us?
Anyway, because of this, we filter our news, and we can't even understand reality. Objectively, if you've been following the news, you know that in 2019 SCOTUS basically authorized a free-for-all in redistricting (in partisan terms). Which at the time was a big deal, but also wasn't quite as notable as it would appear today.
Why? Because traditionally, redistricting occurs every ten years (census). Except ... what happens when you get Trump in office? And Trump is really unpopular (because of course)? And there are midterms coming up? Well suddenly ... Trump tells the GOP ... "Hey guys, it would be great if you could find 10,000 extra, um, House Seats for me." Which is why we have all of these red states suddenly trying to re-district to eek out some more seats right now! Most notably in Texas (maybe you've noticed this... kind of in the news).
We know that all of this is the case because the House GOP is openly talking about it- all of it, from Trump demanding it on done. So because the Red States ARE doing it, the Blue States (California, New York, Maryland) are threatening to do it in retaliation.
So a reasonable observer would say- why is California threatening redistricting? As retaliation for Texas, et al. And why are Texas et al. redistricting? Because Trump demanded that they do so to preserve house seats in the midterm so his unpopularity doesn't sink the house.
Because Trump demanded that they do so to preserve house seats in the midterm so his unpopularity doesn't sink the house.
That can't be right. Everyone knows that Trump is the most popular president since George Washington, due to his undying commitment to combatting crime and promoting the economic wellbeing of the common man.
Trump is at 45% approval on the RCP average, much better than at same point in his first term and better than Bush and Obama at the same point in their second terms
Are you actually upset that I pointed out that replacing a nonpartisan electoral map with a partisan gerrymander would be a "hellhole" move (but neither violate the federal Constitution nor be reviewable in federal court as improper partisanship)? Or are you just upset that California is considering it?
What was really funny was when Maura Healey suggested that MA should join the club.
Ruy Texeira wrote, I think yesterday, that Democrats have a misdirected hope that somehow winning the House in 2026 will save them from their current downward slide. That's the make lesson to be learned in this whole mess.
I gave you the credit you were due. But this is your actual quote- " It would just be yet another example of leftist states being poorly governed hellholes."
You couldn't help yourself. As for the rest- your body of work speaks for itself. So much so that you've been on the ignore border for a while for me; because you're not amusing (in the Dr. Ed sense) and not usually substantive. That said, IIRC your invective is mostly just partisan BS, and not (I think?) overtly racist or misogynistic crap. We'll see.
I did not "whatabout Texas" because it wasn't responsive to Ed's question. You could have, if you wanted to address the relative merits if what Texas and California are doing.
CA's current nonpartisan system is relatively good (in theory very good, in practice it still outweights votes by Democrats). It's also relatively new, established by 2008's Proposition 11 and 2020's Prop 20. As Martinned recognized, replacing it with a partisan, politician-driven system is repugnant to good governance. Doing that as a one-off is arguably even worse.
You act very upset that I didn't drag a different state into the discussion, and it's ironic that you frame that anger as ME being unduly partisan.
I am a little impressed. I've never seen anyone "whatabout whataboutism" before! Gold star.
Brief refresher- whataboutism is when you deflect attention from one issue by raising a DIFFERENT issue. I refer to it as "Look, a Squirrel!" Or, as we see here, someone mentions literally anything, and someone replies with- What about (multiple choice): A. Hunter Biden B. Hillary Clinton C. Obama D. Epstein (well, not recently....)
However, when discussing Dr. Ed's question (that starts with "Gerrymandering is one thing, but ...."), then the necessary context is ... why is California proposing this, and what is the trigger, if any, for California doing this?
That's not whataboutism, that's the needed context. Right? California didn't just wake up one day and say, "Hey, let's screw the GOP by redistricting halfway through the decade." No, they are proposing to redistrict ... conditioned as a retaliatory move IF Texas (and other red states) continue with the mid-decade redistricting.
And why are Texas (and other red states) considered doing this? It wasn't on the horizon at the beginning of the year. Well, as is well documented, Trump demanded that they do it.
So to actually discuss why we are currently in a mad race to the bottom, a person would need to know: a. The 2019 SCOTUS decision that opened the door. b. Trump's demand that red states re-district in order to preserve a house majority. c. The red states that are following through with this (remember when we had a federal system ...). d. The blue states seeing this, and saying that they will retaliate- which will either pressure the red states to end this, or result in a race to the bottom.
Hopefully, the madness will end. There is some (some) pressure in the GOP to stand up to Trump, because there are a few people that are like, "Um, if this goes on, we are going to get booted from our states. That would suck. Also, maybe it's not a good idea to keep changing the rules on the demands of this guy?"
But if I was a betting man, I'd bet on a race to the bottom. Because if you gambled the "over" on the GOP having a spine when it comes to Trump, you'd be bankrupt by now.
As a refresher, Ed's entire comment / question was this:
Ed did not inquire about any other state or about Newsom's motive for rushing to amend California's constitution in this case, so I did not "deflect attention from one issue by raising a DIFFERENT issue" about Texas. I refrained from whatabouting Texas, even though you think one should.
I did cite the 2019 decision that you mention, because that is relevant to his question.
I appreciate that you made my decision easy. Thanks!
It was Prop 20 in 2010, not 2020.
I too am not impressed. The statement about only leftists states without any mention of the context (Texas) is a partisan take.
My solution is a Constitutional Amendment that moves redistricting from the states to the feds, using the same non-partisan methods across all states.
Well, California gerrymandering even harder, (They're already gerrymandered. Sure, by a 'commission', and not the legislature, but pretty heavily already.) would not violate the federal Constitution, but it would, in fact, violate the state constitution. So it's only legal if they can get the public to agree to amend the constitution.
And the schedule for doing so in time to gerrymander harder before the 2026 elections is so tight, they'd also have to amend some laws regulating the timing of ballot amendments, first.
So it's a pretty complex multi-step process without a lot of time to execute.
Newsom proposed a constitutional amendment that, if passed by the legislature, would be on the ballot this November. That amendment would specify what the districts will be in 2026 if Texas does not back down.
Yes, and IIRC, it's too close to that November election to do this, without further legal changes.
A constitutional amendment is a constitutional amendment.
But this kind of thing should be well-pondered by The People, precisely to avoid the blowing winds of political passion that this represents.
Texas chose not to gate redistricting behind citizen commissions.
It reminds me of an old Life in Hell strip, where Binki or whatever his name is, is writing in his diary, how the dumb girls all nominate their friends, but the boys nominate only one, so they win by not splitting the vote.
If Texas already redistricted based on the 2020 census, I would argue they did it already, and doing this midstream smacks of almost, but not quite, changing the rules of an election aftet the election to make your guy win.
>If Texas already redistricted based on the 2020 census
It's already 2025; of course they did. Texas gained House seats from the census and had to redistrict before the 2022 election.
And yeah, it's legal but it stinks.
If they have the votes, it should be quick and easy to pass the legislation. That leaves plenty of time for it to be on the ballot. I'm sure there will legal challenges, but they may have to wait for resolution until after the election.
Brett, are you talking about the Purcell principle followed by federal courts?
Next year's elections are almost fifteen months away. I don't see the applicability of that here.
He's talking about the notion that it's too late to put a proposed state constitutional amendment on the November ballot in California. (I have no idea if he's right, and I'm sure he doesn't either.)
California statutory law.
Elections Code - ELEC DIVISION 9. MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS [9000 - 9611] CHAPTER 1. State Elections [9000 - 9096]
"(a) Every constitutional amendment, bond measure, or other legislative measure submitted to the people by the Legislature shall appear on the ballot of the first statewide election occurring at least 131 days after the adoption of the proposal by the Legislature.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Legislature may specify, in the text of a measure that proposes an amendment or revision of the Constitution, that the constitutional amendment or revision submitted to the people shall appear on the ballot at a statewide election other than the election specified in subdivision (a), if the election specified in the measure would occur at least 131 days after adoption of the measure by the Legislature."
I DO read Hasen's Election Law Blog, you know.
It's not impossible to circumvent this, but they'd need to amend the above statute before going ahead with the ballot initiative. An extra step in the process.
You're not going to actually get to the bottom of how things operate in state politics by only reading the rules.
Now there's some (likely unintentional) candor to start off the weekend!
They just have to pass a companion statute calling for a special election that waives the 131-day rule in addition to passing the constitutional amendment. Five such amendments were presented to the voters in this manner in 2020.
Newsom has said this all must be done by Friday. I'm not sure why that is the drop-dead date.
Maybe the number of procedural safeguards they'd have to waive start multiplying at that point? The 131 day rule isn't the only potential show stopper, IIRC. Not that I expect the show to actually be stopped short of the voting booth.
At which point, the polling does not look good for Newsom.
The thing is, 'independent' commission or no, California is already pretty heavily gerrymandered, Newsom is just threatening to make it more so. I'm not even sure that Texas' threatened gerrymander would make it worse than California is already.
I don't think this would all be happening, though, if the Census hadn't been so badly bungled in 2020.
2020 Census Undercounts in Six States, Overcounts in Eight
Republicans would have a substantially larger majority in the House if not for the Census screwing up, and Trump would have won by a few more electoral votes, too; The mistakes were heavily loaded in favor of the Democrats.
"Constitutionalists hate This One Weird Trick!"
Seriously, though -- they did that in the middle of the initial COVID wave over some fairly low-key stuff (from what I can tell, three of those five amendments didn't even make it to the ballot).
There probably wasn't a whole lot of energy or inclination to litigate that round. This one would be a whole different animal.
This is you, Brett, ignoring practice to try and suss out what's possible by contextless reading the rules.
It's not going to inform you, either practically or politically. No one is going to care if there was an exception passed to CA ELEC DIVISION 9. CHAPTER 1.
But your double standard is *blatant.* You're really het up about California, with zero view for Texas. California is doing nothing Texas isn't doing. And yet, here you are.
Come on dude, even you have to see how you're partisanship has left your posting ridiculously inconsistent. Though your reality is fundamentally distorted, so maybe you can't tell.
But your double standard is *blatant.* You're really het up about California, with zero view for Texas. California is doing nothing Texas isn't doing.
Whatabout, whatabout! Talk about het up.
California is trying to do a too-cute (see my other post) end run around its own election law. There's no reasonable debate about that, which you know -- that's why you're scrambling for distractions.
California is trying to change its election law, in response to Texas changing its.
And of course they're free to do so. But as I know you know, the discussion here is about California trying to change its constitutional election law in a shorter time frame than its procedural election law mandates, by doing what they fancy is a Very Clever end-run around said procedural election law.
Thank you for the clarification, Brett.
The very fact you think liberal states are retaliating for a tactic they have been using for decades nullifies any argument you proffer. Not surprised you parrot Dem talking points while decrying tribalism.
Illinois voted 40% Republican in the last four presidential elections. Republicans have 13% of congressional districts.
California voted for an average of 35% Republican over the last four presidential elections. Republicans have 17% of congressional districts.
Red states are retaliating to blue states actions. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your narrative.
Okay. It's amazing how you read that, and this is what you come up with.
I appreciate that you so ably proved exactly what I just said. Thank you.
Boys, boys! Both sides are shit!
You: Dems are retaliating against Republican redistricting.
Me:Dems have been doing this for decades.
You: partisan hack.
Methinks you lack a certain measure of self-awareness.
More than decades; Eldbridge Gerry was a Democrat...
Elbridge Gerry, governor and later vice-president, was a Democratic-Republican. The party did not become the Democratic Party until Andrew Jackson's day, well after Gerry's death in 1814.
It was continuously the same party, they just dropped the "Republican" part of the name.
"The Democratic Party was founded in 1828 from remnants of the Democratic-Republican Party."
Mid-decade redistricting in response to a command from the president is an escalation.
So, your argument is you can’t do what we do unless you do it at the same time.
Got it.
Trump can’t order Texas Republicans to do a damn thing. He is free to ask. The Texas Congress will decide for themselves.
I am reliably informed by the Illinois governor that is because the Democrats keep giving the state populace what they want, and so keep winning.
LOKI13: "Those dastardly Democrats! It must be illegal!"
No, I was more thinking "equal justice under law" and the rule of precedent.
If Donald Trump's statements about an intent to "ban Muslims" was admissible to show pretextual intent to ban Muslims when he instituted a visa ban from some Muslim countries (but not all, e.g. Indonesia) -- THEN Newsome's statements about an intent to eliminate Republican Congresscritters would be equally admissable to show equal pretextual intent.
In both cases, if the man had kept his mouth shut, it would be a different story. Or if Trump got into trouble because he was eating an apple at the time, and Newsome is now eating an apple, then...
This was literally explained to you, and you still don't get it?
Hmmm... maybe if it could be explained to you in terms of how many moose in Maine ....
Only if the number were a figment of your imagination based on a conversation someone had with a police officer 23 years ago.
I think Newsom is setting himself up for a faceplant. In order to pull off redistricting first they have to call a special referendum to change the state constitution to suspend the redistricting reform law that was a centerpiece of the Schwarzenegger administration.
Arnold has said he will campaign against it, and polls show that only 36% of Californians support suspending the Redistricting Commission.
"It’s not surprising, in the sense that California has voted twice for this independent review commission not all that long ago,” said Jack Citrin, a veteran political science professor at UC Berkeley and partner on the poll. “And there’s a lot of mistrust and cynicism about politicians and the Legislature. That’s reflected here as well.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/14/california-redistricting-newsom-poll-00508930
Its a pretty risky move for Newsom, if he tries, and the voters block the attempt then he could set back his presidential campaign before it starts.
"Its a pretty risky move for Newsom, if he tries, and the voters block the attempt then he could set back his presidential campaign before it starts."
Cali voters will have forgotten the loss almost immediately, and most will have forgiven on the grounds that he was "fighting the good fight." Nationally no one will care.
This is my cynical take, I *wish* you were right...
"So a reasonable observer would say- why is California threatening redistricting? As retaliation for Texas, et al. And why are Texas et al. redistricting? Because Trump demanded that they do so to preserve house seats in the midterm so his unpopularity doesn't sink the house."
As I wrote on another thread yesterday, if Democrats regain control of the House in next year's midterm elections, I predict that Pam Bondi will get a severe case of assholus constrictus. (She won't be the only one, but she appears to be the biggest scofflaw in the Trump administration.)
Also, a reminder-
Before, Trump threatened to oust Intel's CEO. Now, Intel is offering to give the Trum... sorry, the US Government, a stake in Intel.
The GOP has always been in favor of government ownership of the means of production.
Before, Trump said we could not give China advanced AI semiconductors. Now, AMD and NVIDIA will give Trum... sorry, the US Government a 15% cut of all AI chip sales to China.
The GOP has always been in favor of unilateral taxes on corporations and assisting China develop AI.
Before, Trump said that we would keep American businesses, American. Now, Nippon Steel acquired US Steel, but gave Trump (yes, actually TRUMP ... it is specific to HIM while he is President, and then ... it is no longer with the President when he is no longer President) a golden share in the company.
The GOP has always been in favor of government control of the private sector.
And so on. It's almost like ... these aren't small things. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Also where they can invest (Apple) And who should be writing the in-house research (Goldman).
Let it never be said without mockery that MAGA cares about free markets.
Yes, the Trump admin allowing NVIDIA and AMD do what they were begging to do is so anti-capitalist.
It is hard distinguish between letting a company do what they want and telling them to do something they don’t want to do.
Well, it is hard if the person making the argument has an IQ on the evolutionary scale of a Serengeti dung beetle.
The Trump admin didn't "allow" them to do what they were begging to do at all. It extorted money from them in exchange for not preventing them from doing what they were already allowed to do.
Ummm, no. Get your timeline straight.
They weren’t allowed to sell the chips before Trump. They wanted to sell the chips. Trump gave them an out.
Not hard.
Seizing the means of production. I forgot that is also in the playbook.
So, Donald Trump is a communist. Who knew.
Do you see the irony in turning communist just to own the libs?
It's more socialist, in theory. The Democratic Socialists of America must be proud of Trump.
No, it’s more fascist. The government is telling private business what they can and can’t do—see Schindler’s List. It’s not true because NVIDIA and AMD were begging to open up the Chinese market.
Socialist want to own the business (means of production) and run it into the ground.
Do you think the U.S. treasury is Trump’s personal banking account?
Far from forcing NVIDIA and AMD to conform to Heir Trump’s orders, they wanted the trade with China. They begged for it. Trump is forcing them to do what they want? Letting companies do what they want is a takeover of production? Grow up and develop your lagging intellect to its full potential.
There are still restrictions regarding highly advanced chips.
And your take that the GOP is in favor taxes on corporations is truly laughable. Everytime they get in power they try to lower taxes. Or have you forgotten the tax cuts in 2017 that people like you railed against? Corporate welfare your ilk argued. A tax cut that sent the markets and businesses soaring until COVID.
Based on how things have been going to date: absolutely. Nobody in Washington seems interested in putting any limits on Trump's ability to spend, or not spend, any part of the federal budget on the thing it was actually appropriated for, or on something else entirely.
I am sure that he is as responsible with the US Treasury and our tax dollars as he was with charitable donations that he was responsible for.
Thank you! So, just to recap.
You were so totally into defending your team, you didn't even pay any attention to what the issue was, did you?
As you correctly note, this is a TAX. That's right, what you just did is you agreed- this is the Executive Branch unilaterally imposing a TAX. Which is obviously in the penumbras and emanations of the enumerated powers of the Article II unitary executive.
Because you love to use pejoratives like "your ilk," but you don't really don't get it, do you? My ilk? You don't know my ilk. I'm in favor of less regulation, the rule of law, and stable and dependable systems that allow for planning. I am against arbitrary and capricious taxation and exactions enacted by whim.
But you do you!
"ilk "
Extremely funny that loki gets upset with you using a mild word like ilk when he constantly belittles and insults people.
Trump does. Did you see him talking about how the imaginary money that he thinks he extorted from Japan and Europe but which they never agreed to pay would be his money to do whatever he wanted with? Did you see how he's trying to steal a plane given by Qatar to the U.S. government?
Trump: Preventing China from getting AI chips is a matter of national security. Trump Clan: We need more money Also Trump: Sell AI chips to China!
"Free trade" and "limited government" were always hallmarks of "conservatism." I always associated the Republican party with conservatism, but have learned over time that political parties are voting blocks, not ideologies. Those blocks morph ideologically as needed to always try to consolidate their block around whatever philosophy is blowing through.
I think it is a fortunate fact of our past that capable political leaders were notably non-charismatic, probably owing to the fact that the decisions were made in back rooms with already established leaders and the local media players that endorsed them. Nobody was really in charge and cultural history had enough inertia to sustain prevailing philosophical winds.
The internet gave anybody and everybody on earth a nearly-free microphone that let them speak to the whole world and anybody wanting to listen. That repositioned all of the back rooms, political parties, and media outlets as bystanders.
Trump grabbed the microphone and called himself a Republican. He said something that's always been too true: "Your leaders are a bunch of self-sustaining bullshitters." That's not only true, but it places himself as being no less than them.
The audience is transfixed. In the partisan game, culture and philosophy are irrelevant.
But we each wear many hats. Many of us are philosophers and partisans at the same time, and there is apparently little need for congruity between the two.
Gerrymandering is a trashy tool of partisan objectives. Expansion of government power including intrusion in the economy should be avoided. Equal treatment under the law is essential.
Ask not what you can do for your party, but what you can do for your philosophy. It's dying and being replaced by the inclinations of a character, and the inclinations of those who wish to destroy that character.
"I think it is a fortunate fact of our past that capable political leaders were notably non-charismatic, probably owing to the fact that the decisions were made in back rooms with already established leaders and the local media players that endorsed them."
I can't disagree, but I always think .... this guy? THIS GUY? What am I missing? Have you watched him speak? Do you listen to him? How is he charsimatic?
True story- my father (who passed just before COVID hit) was a lifelong Republican- a Goldwater Republican. We were pretty aligned ideologically until the Bush / McCain primaries (after the South Caroline nonsense, I drifted to independent, because I remained fiscally conservative, but didn't like the social drift of the GOP).
Anyway, we had some spicy discussions in 2016, but it was okay, because we always came from a place of mutual respect. But I remember that it was 2017, and I was visiting, and he was watching Fox News (of course....). They were carrying some live Trump speech. I wish I could remember the one. Anyway, he was just rambling, and rambling, and rambling about some nonsense (I think it was about trucks and the desert, and then windmills, and then more trucks, and something else) for 20 minutes, and he was continuing, and finally my dad turned the TV off and looked at me, and said, "That moron should never have been President. I can't believe I voted for him."
Of course, after a couple of seconds, he followed it up with, "But I still wouldn't have voted for Hillary." So there's that.
"THIS GUY?"
Why this guy? I know this will get disagreeing jeers, but he's a self-made rich person, an avid trash-talker, who appears to act independent of the levers of power.
Was there competition? Somebody else who would break the partisan monopoly on power? Who? Bernie?
This is truly a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's the partisan game in its only essential form.
This guy. In 2016, I didn't believe it could come true. But now I know: parties have no souls. Humans, even some of the most flawed ones, do have souls. And people yearn for the touch of a human soul in their visions of the future. There's no human out there with the name "Chuck Wasserman Nancy."
At the same time I call for people to ask what they can do for their philosophies, that's an unintended invitation for the philosophically dogmatic to double down on their soulless statistical visions of people as pieces on their chessboards.
Here comes Mamdani...THIS GUY #2. He's much prettier, even having the gift of appearing to sanitize Marxism. And he's an enemy of a lot of people's enemies. So he has what matters.
I'm planning to die in the not-too-distant future, with the possibility of having almost all my wealth diluted by public policy before then. I need only a little to live. So I think I have the significant eventualities covered.
Dude was a major culture figure for decades, but no charisma.
He's also very funny when he wants.
Oh hey, don't get me wrong! It's not like I think Chuck Schumer is a fountain of charisma- more like a black hole. And there are people who, if you give them a chance to speak for a while, you can actually feel the charisma, but it doesn't come through in sound bites most of the time (AOC, even though I certainly don't agree with her on economics, is genuinely well-spoken, thoughtful, and charismatic when given a chance to speak ... if you get the chance, listen to her engage on the 99% Invisible podcast about Robert Moses on the Powerbroker, where she really gives a thoughtful and detailed analysis about power and responsibility). Other can be inspiring and thoughtful, but also ... come off as too slick (Cory Booker, for example, is someone who I think is genuinely intelligent and motivated and a good leader, but damn he tries way to hard).
And then there's the natural politicians. People that just have "it." One of the best example of one I saw in action was actually Bill Nelson (former Congressman and Senator)- he wasn't great on TV, but I saw him work "retail politics" before and he was amazing. He could recall people he met years before, and details about them, and talk to them like they were old friends, even if he had only briefly met them a single time. It was uncanny. But again- it didn't translate to mass media.
Probably the single best was ... yeah, you know. Clinton. He had Nelson's retail politics ability, and he could translate it to mass media and rallies. Of course, he had ... other issues. Obama had a youthful charisma and definitely could inspire, but he was no Clinton. On the GOP side, the 2000 McCain had that charisma. Reagan (of course). Romney had competence, but never could connect well with people. I know I'm missing some obvious choices.
But I genuinely don't get why people think Trump has charisma. Is it a carryover from the Apprentice? (Never watched) I've tried to watch him speak, and it's just incoherent. Not the little snippets- I can't watch him speak for any length of time, because it's just nonsense.
But obviously I'm not his target demo.
A tangential reply.
Mamdani is receiving a great deal of support in significant part because he is demonstrating the qualities that make a successful politician. He is doing the work, crafting a message suitable to the moment, and it shows in the support he received over other candidates. He also has charisma.
That all is a significant part of what "matters." He is not just getting support because he is the "enemy of my enemy."* People are attracted to his positivity, support his message, and his youthful enthusiasm. Notably, each of his opponents is over 60, and each has an "old and tired" quality to them, especially Cuomo.
Political campaigns bring out people like this & hopefully, some more will come out on the national level. We need more of them.
===
* That factors in. And it is not inherently wrong to support someone because they strongly oppose what you think is wrong.
If that is all they have to offer, especially if they are otherwise bad, it's problematic. However, regularly, that is not true. People can support them for other good reasons.
Just what NYC needs a young, Muslim David Dinkins. Florida and Texas will need more housing.
I agree dude's a good politician. Good instincts, good work-ethic, good organizational skills.
But a political skillset has only some overlap with a policymaking skillset.
Still, vision and dedication are in both sides of that Venn Diagram.
I'm also optimistic, but NYC is the deep end. And it seems like every single Democrat that's been in office for over 10 years hates his guts.
We shall see.
Brad Lander, who cross-endorsed him, was first elected to the city council in 2010. And other Democrats who supported other candidates have begun to endorse him. One blog flagged that Obama did.
The Democrats who aren't endorsing him are generally among the old guard. Jeffries is a supporter of that old guard. He's Pelosi's pick and has been critical of AOC, too. Others frame themselves as moderates, and Mamdani is framed as "left."
He is “framed” as left?
He bought the wood. He made the 45° cuts. He put in a piece of glass. He used finishing nails. And then he held it up in front of his face.
We're supposed to completely ignore his embarrassing past, and by "past", I mean 3-4 years ago.
Hopefully this represents a changing of the guard, and the old guard is unhappy about it.
I know this will get disagreeing jeers, but he's a self-made rich person,
Consider this a disagreeing jeer.
No. He's not "self-made" by any stretch. His father funded him to the tune of, IIRC, $400 million, and bailed him out of several failures. His return on his starting capital is lower than mine (and I'm no billionaire) and probably lower than that of many here.
He did manage to steal a lot of money by not paying bills, etc., but six bankruptcies suggest he was a very poor businessman.
He didn't file for bankruptcy. His businesses did. You could pick from these three conclusions and probably more:
1. You win some, you lose some. Some of his businesses did well and some failed. 2. He is a bad businessman. 3. He used the bankruptcy system as effectively as any private equity fund.
but he's a self-made rich person,
Yes, purely on his own merits he chose the right father.
"capable political leaders were notably non-charismatic"
Some capable political leaders were charismatic. Charisma was and is a useful tool to have to get ahead in politics.
The days of backrooms didn't mean charisma was not a thing.
Trump is not a "self-made" rich person.
He was not and is "independent" to the power brokers. He carefully framed his message/actions to work with them.
Trump is strongly opposed by a range of ideologically inclined people because Trump is bad in many ways. It is not merely some sort of partisan thing. Other non-Democrats aren't handled the same way.
He's charismatic to the folks who believe the elites are screwing them by speaking his mind in plain terms (no matter how nuts the substance is). Look at the Apprentice. In the end, Trump makes the decision in simple terms (you're fired). Yes, that's authoritarianism. But, authoritarianism is popular with the disaffected so long as they believe the authoritarian is on their side.
There was an episode of The Apprentice, getting toward the end of a season, where an outstandingly talented competitor criticized Trump. In picking who to fire, Trump chose that guy. Trump said something like, "That's not very smart to criticize your boss. It's disloyal."
I was a boss for much of my life. It's easy to be the naked king before subjects who tell you how nice are your clothes. It's much harder to find critical feedback, especially from the people who work for you...the people who are most intimately familiar with your problems. It was an endless struggle for me to keep the dialog honest and open (and non-threatening) enough to foster the few people willing to speak up. In my life as a boss, those people were a particular kind of gem.
Trump having fired that guy for that reason, even for the purpose of TV drama, was a lousy act for anybody who sincerely values competent management. He sent a horrible message that was unforgivable in my view. (I didn't watch the show much.)
I watched it in its early years. Now, it's a mistake to delve too deeply into a so-called reality show that's actually heavily scripted, but the way it worked was that the contestants were divided into teams and had to complete some sort of task each week; at the end of each episode, the losing team would be called into the "boardroom" and someone on that team who had done a bad job would, famously, get fired. The teams each chose a captain each week. The downside of being captain was that if you were the captain of the losing team you were much more likely to be fired; the upside was that the captain of the winning team would get immunity the next week.
Anyway, one thing that stuck with me was that a guy who had immunity because he had won the previous week said, cockily, "I know I did such a good job that I don't even need immunity." It was true. And Trump said, "That was stupid. I don't care that you did a good job; you don't give up immunity that I gave to you. You're fired for that." It was purely out of spite. Which is emblematic of Trump.
(All quotes paraphrased from 20-year old memories.)
Well, either spite or "Voluntarily relinquishing an advantage is a disqualifying mistake."
Not really, Jackson, Teddy R., FDR, JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Obama were certainly charismatic
William Jennings Bryan was hyper charismatic.
charisma didn't matter as much pre-radio and tv, but as I said, Jackson and Bryan were., as were Calhoun, Webster, and Clay
I know that feeling of your dad. I did never voted for Trump, but I never would have voted for Hilary and never ever for Harris.
"Before, Trump said we could not give China advanced AI semiconductors. Now, AMD and NVIDIA will give Trum... sorry, the US Government a 15% cut of all AI chip sales to China."
I must admit concerns about this.
Clinton did the same thing -- and 30 years later, CCP ICBMs threaten America. Ummm....
"Clinton did the same thing ...."
The same thing?
Clinton demanded and received a 15% cut of all AI chips sales by AMD and NVIDIA to China?
Maybe not the SAME thing?
Was it close? Did Clinton demand a 15% cut of chip sales (not AI) by any company to China?
....or is that just a macro that you have?
You know that line, "History repeats itself"?
It doesn't.
Neal Bush helped China develop their semiconductor industry and he’s on China’s payroll to this very day.
Mayor Muriel Bowser (no relation to Bowser in Sha Na Na) flees to Martha's Vineyard. Film at 11.
Woman of the People!
And something about the Head of the DEA being Chief of the DC Police.
The President and Attorney General have used a Congressional statute requiring the DC Mayor to provide specific police services to the federal government to address an emergency as a justification not just for issuing direct orders to ikdividual DC police officers but purporting to appoint their own DC Police Commissioner.
Why aren’t the pants being sued off of them?
Probably because the DC government is purely a statutory creation of the federal government, would be my guess, and they're aware that they could be abolished entirely if they ticked off a Congressional majority and President.
"...that they could be abolished entirely if..." Substitute "should" for "could" and you'd have it right.
It looks like they just sued.
Did the mayor ok it? She is on vacation in ultra rich Martha's Vineyard
Just what this country needs; more law suits.
That's the secret of how to turn the US into a garbage fire: people who believe in the rule of law will bring lawsuits instead of doing something that's actually effective. Meanwhile, Trump and his Project 2025 people can do whatever they like, and by the time all the litigation is over the case is moot anyway.
"bring lawsuits instead of doing something that's actually effective."
So, what would be "effective" that they should be doing?
People in D.C. also went out in the streets and protested, which seemed to have some effect. Lawsuits have long been a tool. It's not the only tool. But it can be a useful one when used with others.
A 1973 law that gives the president the power to take temporary control of the city’s police.
Passed in response to DemoKKKrat Senator John Stennis getting shot and robbed in front of his Capitol Hill Townhouse
Their pants have just been sued.
https://apnews.com/article/washington-dc-trump-federal-police-takeover-lawsuit-eacd387053520c9e3640c2f91924deeb
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71116258/district-of-columbia-v-donald-j-trump/
"The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee" https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/15/dc-police-trump-lawsuit
Good news for rule of law fans!
I don't wanna see the pants off of anyone on either side anywhere near this issue!
In cases where the President collects monies in exchange for granting an export license completely extralegally, who has standing to sue? The companies do, but they need their export licenses, so they aren’t in a practical position to contest it.
Who can?
Has the President discovered a way of shaking businesses down tor cash that’s completely unreviewable by the courts?
Take two aspirin and call a lawyer in the morning.
What they need to do is authorize citizens as bounty hunters to sue the companies for monies. Voila! Unreviewable.
What is their injury outside of needing a license?
You people keep telling me that tariffs are paid by consumers. A tax on exports is nothing but the importing company having to pay more they pass along by consumers.
NVIDIA and AMD can simply up their price by 15%. No injury. No grounds for a suit.
But as with most of your ilk, you can’t comprehend a pendulum swing both ways.
I burn your house down and destroy everything in it. But insurance covees it. So no harm, no foul, no injury, you have no basis to have a beef with me?
Being illegally shaken down causes injury in the same way having your house burned down does, whether a third party covers it or not.
That said, I find it astonishing that you would suddenly say taxes, let alone shake-downs, don’t hurt anybody.
If I burn down your house and your insurance pays, you can't get any money from me. You have a First or Ninth Amendment right to be annoyed. You can contribute to my opponent's campaign fund.
But watch out for his insurance company, in that case!
Just to be sure, are you claiming to be an attorney of some sort? What you say here is undeniably wrong.
So now you are arguing a tax is illegal, on par with arson, and a tax is a tortious act?
I didn’t say they don’t hurt, but in this case the injured party is Chinese consumers. Sorry if I don’t give a fluck.
I am pointing out how many times I have heard “Trump tariffs are passed along to consumers.” But a tariff on exports is now magically an injury to businesses?
I can sue for emotional distress, loss of consortium, trespassing, a bunch of other stuff. Plus punitive damages. It’s not just the bare monetary loss.
"completely extralegally"
Says who?
who has standing to sue?
Major shareholders?
Vanguard has a $400 billion stake in Nvidia, and lots of other investment firms have 8 or 9 digit stakes.
AMD is similar. (go to the Nvidia link and substitute "AMD" for "NVDA.")
(I tried a comment earlier with separate links and it disappeared. I though that annoying rule had been discarded.)
Shareholders could sue the company and its leaders. I don't think they have standing to sue the government.
They have standing because NVIDIA and AMD have been allowed access to a market that was previously closed to them?
Whatever. They didn’t have to take the deal if it was so detrimental.
The idea here is that the market is not Mr. Trump’s personal property. Just because he’a President does not entitle him to sell government permits for cash. They had a right to expect Mr. Trump to limit his review to the national security concerns identified in the statute, and not financial gain.
It’s like saying, when a police officer agrees not to arrest you if you give him a blow job, that you didn’t lose anything because you got valuable access to freedom in exchange, you didn’t have to take the deal if it was so detrimental. The fact that the law lets him make arrests, and lets him make discretionary decisions not to arrest, does not turn your freedom into his property or entitle him to sell to you for whatever he can charge. Discretion means honest discretion. Same here.
" They had a right to expect Mr. Trump to limit his review to the national security concerns identified in the statute, and not financial gain."
Has Trump (or the Trump enterprise) benefited financially?
He has a slush fund to spend as he pleases outside the control of Congress. He has no obligation to spend it on anything in particular. That’s benefitting financially. If he were a person of great charity, maybe he’d spend it on things benefitting the country rather than himself. But he has neither obligation to nor record of doing so.
How do we know the money will go somewhere else besides the treasury?
Yes, I was wondering that myself. I think that this money is available to Trump is a left wing fever dream. In short, moneys are paid to CBP, and are then deposited in the U.S. Treasury general fund.
"If you're paying tariffs (customs duties, taxes, fees) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by check, the check should be made payable to "U.S. Customs and Border Protection". It's important to note the following: Payment Methods: CBP offers several payment methods, including electronic payment via the Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) system, mail-in payments, and in-person payments at designated CBP locations. Checks on foreign banks are not accepted. For mailed payments, ensure you send them to the correct address as indicated on your CBP bill."
"[T]ariffs paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) go into the U.S. Treasury. Specifically, the money collected from tariffs is deposited into the U.S. Treasury's general fund. From there, these funds are treated like other government revenue, such as income tax, and can be used for various federal spending purposes as determined by Congress, including financing programs like Medicare and the military."
Even under a strict interpretation of the Unitary Executive Theory, this theory does not apply to federal territory. Congress, which is the body in which the Constitution vests plenary authority over federal territory, and can choose to grant autonomy, in whole or in part, as it chooses, to the inhabitants of territories. And when it does so, the President is powerless to act. He has no inherent authority to simply muscle in and take over. The President, with no inherent power at all, is obligated to strictly respect the autonomy Congress provided for. When Congress permits the President to involve himself in limited circumstances, courts have both power and a duty to ensure that both the circumstances in which the President can involve himself, and the limits of that involvement, are in compliance with Congress’ mandate.
The President’s actions here are totally out of proprortion to the very limited authority Congress gave him. He is, frankly, making pretensions and presuming grandiosities so far outside his limited station, and so disrespecting the autonomy that Congress granted the District of Columbia under its Home Rule Act, that the DC police frankly have no obligation to listen to his ravings or his scribblings, or to pay attention to anything he says. They don’t, and don’t have to answer to him.
The President is so far out of lime here that I recommend they simply don’t. Let’s see what happens if they don’t.
If he doesn’t like the fact that they are paying no attention to him, HE can sue.
And this has to start happening more.
"He has no inherent authority to simply muscle in and take over."
Yes, he does. A 1973 law that gives the president the power to take temporary control of the city’s police.
So, calm yourself. You're likely to have an aneurism.
While the President may have some inherent power to execute the laws as Chief Executive, he seems to be relying mainly on statutory authority.
As Justice Jackson described it in Youngstown:
"When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate ".
Section 740 of the 1973 DC Home Rule act says "whenever the President of the United States determines special conditions of an emergency nature exist" that require it he can take over the DC police.
It most certainly does not say that. It says he can request that the Mayor provide specific police services. It uses the language of a customer and an independent contractor. When Company A provides services to the customer, the company remains the boss of the people performing the services. Not only that, it can require that the customer talk only to a designated company rep and not communicate with the employees directly. So when the Mayor of DC provides police services to the President.
Find me a sentence in the text that says otherwise.
An of course, the President waking up in the morning and deciding he wants to do something about a problem that’s been around for years is not an emergeny. An emergeny is aomething that emerges. It requires something new to occur in the real world, not just inside the President’s head.
Look the word up in a dictionary.
Here is how TheHill describes it:
"What is Section 740? Section 740 is a portion of the Home Rule Act that states if a president “determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist,” D.C.’s mayor has to lend them “such services of the Metropolitan Police Force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate."
That hardly sounds like the mayor can tap the sign and refuse service to this particular customer.
Obviously she isn't very concerned since she decided to vacation in the playground of working class, Martha's Vineyard.
But the Mayor is providing services. It’s the language of an independent contractor. when you hire a company to provide you services, you don’t even get to talk to the employees directly unless the company agrees to it; otherwise you jave to go through the conpany’s designated rep. This is the framework Congress provided for. The Mayor furnishes the President service therough the DC chain of command. The Mayor is the only person the President is authorized to talk to about any of the services. The statute doesnmt even autjorize the president to communicate with anyone other than the Mayor. It in no way authorizes the President to muscle in, appoint his own police commissioner, and start ordering individual police officers anout.
Kazinski, no one should care what TheHill reports. There is no substitute for original source materials. Section 730 states in full:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate. In no case, however, shall such services made available pursuant to any such direction under this subsection extend for a period in excess of forty-eight hours unless the President has, prior to the expiration of such period, notified the Chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on the District of Columbia of the Senate and the House of Representatives, in writing, as to the reason for such direction and the period of time during which the need for such services is likely to continue. (b) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, such services made available in accordance with subsection (a) of this section shall terminate upon the end of such emergency, the expiration of a period of thirty days following the date on which such services are first made available, or the enactment into law of a joint resolution by the Congress providing for such termination, whichever first occurs. (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, in any case in which such services are made available in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section during any period of an adjournment of the Congress sine die, such services shall terminate upon the end of the emergency, the expiration of the thirty-day period following the date on which Congress first convenes following such adjournment, or the enactment into law of a joint resolution by the Congress providing for such termination, whichever first occurs. (d) Except to the extent provided for in subsection (c) of this section, no such services made available pursuant to the direction of the President pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days, unless the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate. In no case, however, shall such services made available pursuant to any such direction under this subsection extend for a period in excess of forty-eight hours unless the President has, prior to the expiration of such period, notified the Chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on the District of Columbia of the Senate and the House of Representatives, in writing, as to the reason for such direction and the period of time during which the need for such services is likely to continue.
(b) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, such services made available in accordance with subsection (a) of this section shall terminate upon the end of such emergency, the expiration of a period of thirty days following the date on which such services are first made available, or the enactment into law of a joint resolution by the Congress providing for such termination, whichever first occurs.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, in any case in which such services are made available in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section during any period of an adjournment of the Congress sine die, such services shall terminate upon the end of the emergency, the expiration of the thirty-day period following the date on which Congress first convenes following such adjournment, or the enactment into law of a joint resolution by the Congress providing for such termination, whichever first occurs.
(d) Except to the extent provided for in subsection (c) of this section, no such services made available pursuant to the direction of the President pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days, unless the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.
https://dccouncil.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Home-Rule-Act-2018-for-printing-9-13-182.pdf
Yes, I had read the section, and it says exactly what I said it did. There is no wiggle room here, even if you want to pretend there is:
"he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate."
I would have quoted the section but the PDF I had wouldn't let me copy the text. But thank you for emphasizing my point.
Yes, I had read the section, and it says exactly what I said it did.
Yes, exactly. Except you said that it says he "can take over the DC police," and the section doesn't say that he can take over the DC police.
The section you quote clearly says the President contacts the Mayor and the Mayor provides requested police services, with all employees remaining under the DC command’s authority, just like any other situation where an imdependent entity provides services to another, legally separate entity.
The statute in no way authorizes the President to so much as communicate about the matter with anyone other than the Mayor. It in no way authorizes him to start bossing around the City’s employees as if he had some sort of direct authority over them.
While the so-called “emergency police commissioner” has the same right to offer his opinions about how DC police should do their jobs as any other private citizen, if he starts trying to interfere with police officers in doing their jobs, he should be promply shown the door. And if he refuses to leave, he should be arrested for tresspassing and interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duties just like any other meddling busy-body provate citizen who won’t go away.
Read it. Section 740 just doesn’t say that.
CNN reports a new test for teachers coming from California or New York to the Sooner State. Test itself is probably constitutional under 1A; questionable for discriminating against people from certain states.
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/prageru-oklahoma-woke-teacher-test
What's interesting is that the questions, at least as listed in the CNN, sound like ones you learn at high school.
- "which chromosome pairs determine biological sex": X and Y chromosomes are referred to as sex chromosomes; specifically, the SRY gene of the Y chromosome is essential in determining primary sex characteristics. - "why freedom of religion is important to America’s identity": Because Americans believe Muslims and Buddhists are just as welcome as the various denominations of Protestants... right? (/s) - "first three words of the Constitution": "All legislative Powers" (yes, I know this is a very controversial take.)
I'm genuinely surprised that they don't require it for those coming from all states.
And you'd be surprised at what is not taught in high school anymore.
What’s really amazing is the determination that the Human Chromosome number is 46 wasn’t confirmed until the 1950’s, for nearly a century the accepted number was 48(OK take your shots H8ers), lots of peoples reported only counting 46 but were derided for their poor technique. We had to do a Karyotype(Google it) in Junior Year Genetics at Auburn (along with breeding several generations of Fruit Flies) you drew your blood, added Colchicine to stop the cells dividing in Metaphase, where you can see the Chromosomes) added several dies, dehydrating agents, then looked under a Microscope for the Chromosomes. Depending on how good your technique was, there were a lot of “artifacts” that looked like Chromosomes but were just cellular debris, I think mine determined I was a Frog
Isn't Colchicine a gout medication -- a cure worse than the disease...
Dr Ed, once again demonstrating those who can, do, those who can’t, teach. Yes Colchicine is prescribed for Gout(mostly by Old (Redacteds) like me who learned about it in the Old days when Med Students delivered babies and dissected Cadavers themselves. It’s effective for Acute attacks only, and if I had a Shekel for every NP who prescribes Allopurinol (only effective in lowering Uric Acid slowly, used to prevent attacks) I’d you’ve ever had (the) Gout you’d take friggin Cyanide if it worked, prescribed it for my Father-in-Law back during the Vid when he couldn’t get into his PCQ (Primary Care Quack) now he swears by it (he swears at a lot of things) Want a poison? Prescribing Amphetamines to children
Kind of like they only discovered that the lymphatic system extends into the CNS in 2015, thanks to the invention of a better staining technique.
A case where the writing of Henry David Thoreau appears to be used as evidence rather than flowery verbiage.
The Land Court judge found that "Thoreau's description of a walk on the 'old Carlisle road' . . . describes a walk on Estabrook Road . . . with many of the same landmarks still evident today, including the lime kiln, the limestone quarry, the Kibby (or Kibbe) place, and Oak Meadow, which is now Mink Pond."
Town of Concord v. Rasmussen, https://www.mass.gov/doc/town-of-concord-v-rasmussen-sjc-k13721/download
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was asked to decide whether a particular old road was open to the public, or whether COVID-fearing abutters could block it off with a gate. One question was whether the road was ever a public way. Any records of the layout have been lost. (Layout is a formal legal term here.) The circumstantial evidence that it was maintained as a public way include an account by Thoreau. Added up, the bits of circumstantial evidence justified a finding that the road was once public.
The road was formally discontinued in 1932 and became a private way. The next question for the court was whether the public has a right of access to a private way. In this case, yes. The term "private way" is ambiguous. The court said a private way as used in the 1932 discontinuance meant a way that is open to the public but not maintained by the town. A private way can also mean a road that is controlled by abutters.
I don't know why Thoreau isn't hearsay in this case.
You really need to get laid.
Maybe the Ancient Documents exception to the hearsay rule? Or maybe it was not offered to assert the literal truth of his writings, but to illuminate the historical landscape?
"I don't know why Thoreau isn't hearsay in this case."
Perhaps because per Section 803(16) of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence "A statement in a document that is at least thirty years old and whose authenticity is established is admissible in evidence"?
NG you're talking about the federal rules. I wasn't sure but looked up your source. MA does not have an ancient document exception to the hearsay rule. The MA guide isn't the same as Fed Evidence 803.
I'm watching the BBC's live coverage of the Alaskan Tarmac waiting for The Great Peacemaker to land for his summit in Alaska in a hours. Actually he just arrived while I was typing.
Trump has said "something is going to come" from the Summit, but of those things is "severe consequences".
So what are your expectations of the Summit?
I am hopeful of a ceasefire but I won't be surprised if it fails and secondary sanctions are imposed on countries using and trading Russian oil.
Usually they don't go into these things with a blank slate,
Win, lose or draw will Trump receive any credit for getting this meeting?
The right wing echo chamber deserves credit for spinning this issue as a negative for Biden. Putin essentially made America energy dominant and the only downside was a few months of high energy prices. And now that Trump is promoting LNG exports to China while slashing renewable subsidies we are getting higher electricity rates and Trump supporters don’t even care!?! I guess it’s not as bad as voting for Bush to send your buddies to slaughter Muslims while he ships your job to China…but it’s pretty bad nonetheless!
I am not sure I am interpreting your question correctly. When you say "for getting this meeting," are you implying that Trump deserves credit for… giving Putin something Putin desperately wanted, as though this were an accomplishment for Trump?
I gave up guessing what Trump will do long ago. The man is chaotic and unpredictable.
For all we know we'll be at war with Russia soon. Or BFFs.
Chaotic and Unpredictable? Unlike our last POTUS who had/has Dementia and Terminal Cancer(Stage 4, last time I checked there’s no Stage 5)
So after all this Putin is going to nuke the world?
With several thousand Nuke-ular Weapons, he could conceivably deliver one to all of the UN’s current members (I’d prefer they all go to France) Frank
Save one for Gaza... 🙂
What a quite Open Thread.
Are you one of the Heathers? It’s a very very quite Open Thread
You've hitched your wagon to idiots, Frankie.
Never made a typo?
I’m just busting balls, “Sweetie”! OK, now please don’t bust me over the head with a bottle like that guy did on “The Sopranos” (Eugene? Gene? The one who hung himself when Tony wouldn’t let him retire to Florida)
Comment was directed at hobie scank.
You might be an Idiot but you’ve got ‘Moxie” Now be honest, you have no clue what I meant with that “Heathers” ref
Guilty.
I think people may be spooked by Frank Drackman having cheered for more posts in the last open thread.
"If I post, I will have done what Frank Drackman wants."
It's an existential crisis. Like daring to shut up while Donald Trump is still in power. Who would do that? Shut up for a second. While he...
It's summer, the end stretch, and maybe some people have better stuff to do right now? I mean something, anything, just a little better than this? Is that too much?
Happy summer time, ladies, gentlemen, others.
lol
REDRUM REDRUM REDRUM Sam is hungry, very hungry
Frank “what took you so long?”
Trump has decimated the Federal Government.
The federal government is on pace to eliminate about 300,000 workers this year.
Office of Personnel Management director Scott Kupor said 80% of those employees would leave voluntarily and 20% would be fired. Kupor provided the figures to Reuters on Thursday. That’s a 12.5% reduction in the federal workforce since January."
It could be a double decimation by the end of year.
And has anyone noticed?
...and does anyone care?
Oh there are lots of people.that care.
Perhaps the thing they hate the most is he showed how easy it is to do if someone has the will.
Like with shutting down the flow of illegals at the border and deporting illegals? Funny how Dems said it couldn't be done without "fixing" the "broken" immigration system.
On the prop bet front, the NBA and the Players Associated have adopted my proposal to reform prop betting, so that prop bets where one person can control the outcome be banned (hopefully voluntarily):
"With three players involved in a federal gambling investigation, the NBA and its players' association said this week that they support further limitations on certain types of bets to reduce the risk of manipulation and combat athlete abuse by gamblers.
"Protecting the integrity of our game is paramount, and we believe reasonable limitations on certain prop bets should be given due consideration," an NBA spokesperson said in a statement to ESPN. "Any approach should aim to reduce the risk of performance manipulation while ensuring that fans who wish to place prop bets can continue to do so via legal, regulated markets."
In reaction, the NBA asked its partner sportsbooks to stop allowing bettors to wager on the under on prop bets involving players on two-way contracts, like Porter was at the time of the alleged scheme.
The league now believes further limitations on prop bets may be warranted."
"[Players] are concerned that prop bets have become an increasingly alarming source of player harassment, both online and in person," an NBPA spokesperson said in a statement to ESPN. "If tighter regulations can help minimize that abuse, then we support taking a closer look at them."
I’ll bet you 5:1 nothing happens, but hey, sounds like you know this stuff, What’s the Over/Under on how many Dildos get tossed on the Court during Clarks next game?
Well worth listening to, and quite balanced for a topic people have strong political opinions about.
Is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional?
I don't, by the way, think it's entirely unconstitutional, but is being enforced in an unconstitutional manner.
Brett, if you want to see gerrymandering at it's most extreme, here's Louisiana's. All the dirty neegroes/cities lumped into one
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/LA-New-Cong-Map.png
Man, you sure talk like a racist. Are you sure you actually live in a mixed race neighborhood, the way I do?
The map shows what a true gerrymander looks like. Of course it is the result of a court ordered majority black district. Racist court?
It might be “Mixed Race” when Hobie-Stank moves in, but it quickly “Gentrifies”, it’s his BO, he’s a one man Block Buster
Proof positive you don’t have a clue about what you opine.
There are two heavily gerrymandered districts; the 2nd and 6th. Both have black reps. Those lines are specifically drawn to have minority-majority districts.
There are six districts in La. Black population is around 33% (slightly less). They have 33% representation in the House.
STFU
Fulton county judge make minor mistake reading murder verdict.
That's… not good.
Jesus...
So you mean Satan?
It is amazing watching one of the world's foremost chefs - Jose Andres - wearing a bullet-proof vest. Knowing that he, his staff, and his starving customers could (will) get killed by Israeli troops at any time, he continues to try and feed people.
I'm old fashioned. I don't smile when food aid is cut off here or abroad. This chef is a hero to me.
Or get killed by Hamas. But Andres does run a good (and very popular) middle eastern food restaurant in DC
The people with blood on their hands are the Americans that started protesting Israel on 10/8. And notice they are young people that didn’t live through 9/11. Netanyahu said, and I believe this is reasonable, he put a deadline of 1/2025 on the operation because Bernie Sanders could be president at that time and then Israel would have been cutoff from American weapon systems. So Netanyahu probably was a little reckless but it was completely justified from my perspective because if you protested on 10/8 you were siding with Hamas. So progressives forced his hand.
And then the Republicans that wishcasted Biden’s pier fail are just as bad. Those same people whined about Afghans left behind by Trump’s surrender to the Taliban but wanted Palestinians to starve…makes perfect sense. /sarc. I feel sorry for the Palestinians but they have zero friends in America. I’ve washed my hands of it.
I mean, that's the way of things over there now.
Hamas hasn't been seen in months, except for Israel announcing this or that prominent civilian was a sekret Hamas leader.
There's one large-scale threat in Israel, and it's the IDF. Even if I thought they were being effective in targeting Hamas at this point, I'd think they've moved well beyond proportionality or reasonable collateral damage.
That sucks not just for everyone outside of Israel, but it's a problem for Israel. Making yourself a pariah state does not have a history of long-term viability. I know and care about people from Israel and people who have visited there and found it meaningful. I share their despair about this path Israel is on.
And the people claiming, 'no, it's that the rest of the world is all antisemitic' are enabling this. Or, worse, detrimentally using Israel and accusations of antisemitism as an instrument for their short-term domestic partisan bullshit.
Holy cow, I couldn't disagree with you more.
First, "Hamas hasn't been seen in months, ...." That's baloney. What about the video they gleefully released of an Israeli hostage being forced to dig his own grave? (Beginning of August.). Doesn't that count?
And, no, the IDF is not the biggest threat in Israel, they are not a threat at all! They are protecting saving their country from the barbarous forces of Hamas, their Palestinian supporters and collaborators, their UNRWA collaborators, so-called journalists who are Hamas sympathizers or even Hamas combatants.
Why doesn't Hamas release the hostages?
Why do they steal the food aid and sell it at inflated prices to the Gazans?
As far as proportionality and collateral damage, Israel has done more to minimize collateral damage than any army in modern history. What combatant force feeds their enemy? Provides medical supplies and medical care to their enemies, and the civilians of their enemy?
Get real, man. Your post is shameful, and a bunch of lies.
"Hamas hasn't been seen in months"
The Palestinians surrendered? No one is shooting back at Israeli forces in Gaza?
They have a cloak of invisibility.
People who tut-tut about a supposed downward slide in political discord should read this and consider whether they are significant drivers of that (perceived) slide.
But let us be clear what is going on. The right-wing populists are gaining ground in so many countries because the cultural liberals in various parliaments and congresses are extremely reluctant to meet the preferences of their median voters. On the immigration issue most of all. And then they wish to talk about threats to democracy!
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/08/a-median-voter-theory-of-right-wing-populism.html
"One year ago, the United States was a dead country, and now, because of the trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have so badly abused us, America is a strong, financially viable, and respected country again."
Sincerely,
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
/s/ Brett Shumate
Brett Shumate
Assistant Attorney General
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2025/08/parody-or-reality-you-decide.html
No comment.
"European leaders will join Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy when he travels to Washington, D.C., on Monday for a high-stakes meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump.
On Sunday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Finnish President Alexander Stubb all confirmed their attendance. Their joint presence underscores Europe’s determination to present a united front in support of Ukraine as Russia's war drags on."
What? Were they invited? This is more of Zelensky's childish nonsense. If I was Trump I'd put them all in a room and meet privately with Zelensky, and then say, O.K., meeting over.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/european-leaders-join-trump-zelensky-meeting-signaling-solidarity-ukraine
It’s so hilarious how you hate Zelensky because he wouldn’t help Trump cheat in the 2020 election when being president for those 4 years would have ended up being an unmitigated catastrophe for Trump. Trump got lucky he lost in 2020 just like Democrats got lucky Kerry lost in 2004. Although the big difference is that Biden did a great job while Bush did an awful job that compounded the disastrous decisions he made in his first term. But had Kerry won then Obama would never have won and Obama was a great president.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Matthew Petti | From the November 2025 issue
Beth Bailey | 10.3.2025 4:40 PM
Jacob Sullum | 10.3.2025 4:25 PM
Jacob Sullum | 10.3.2025 3:20 PM
Autumn Billings | 10.3.2025 2:52 PM
