Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 9.10.2025 3:00 AM
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: Second Amendment Roundup: 2nd Circuit Upholds Connecticut’s Semiautomatic Firearm Ban
Hide Comments (411)
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.
Lisa Cook got her TRO Tuesday.
Two observations about the ruling:
1) the Judge ruled only in office malfeasance could constitute "for cause" firing.
2) Lisa Cook has a owns her Fed seat until her term expires.
And one procedural note, the Judge waited until this week before issuing her 14 day "non-appealable" TRO, if she issued it last week as Cook requested, it would have expired by the next Fed meeting.
2 1/2 predictions: There is a 92% chance that the TRO will be construed as a preliminary injunction and stayed before the Fed meeting.
There is a 98% chance that the Fed will lower the discount rate by at least 1/4% at the meeting whether or not Cook sits. And there is a 45% chance that the Fed will lower the discount rate 1/2% whether or not Cook sits (45% is a bullshit prediction, but it is what it is).
What is a judge doing trying to time things so as to affect policy? It should carry zero weight.
If the order sticks, she'll attend the meeting either way.
If the order is overturned, this judge has no business setting who attends the meeting.
3 A 45% chance she's "Arkancided."
It's what the Clintons would do.
incredible that the first female jungle bunny to hold that post happens to get her case heard before another female jungle bunny appointed by the nog loving biden.
the fix is in folks.
"[F]emale jungle bunny"??
When will the commenters here who get the vapors when I refer to "Clarence Uncle Thomas" pile on to sopij16501?
Well, I don't know what I can do beside muting him.
The guy stinks of troll, the only question in my mind is, free range or farm raised?
Statistically speaking, there should be 5 white men for every black woman -- in anything.
Including mortgage fraud.
Yes, it is often hard to distinguish between MAGA and paid troll here.
Definitely over the line.
Looks like another burner account, the last one already burned.
Just wonder if the idiot is serious, parody, or false flag.
I've now seen two short comments from that troll, and it is on my mute list.
I occasionally unmute some people, but I don't expect to unmute that one.
"When will the commenters here who get the vapors when I refer to "Clarence Uncle Thomas" pile on to sopij16501?"
You act as if there's some slippery slope here where you and a not-even-worthy-of-remark commenter are ending up being treated the same. That's B.S. You're better than that. You're expected to be better than that. And you do yourself no favor here by citing such a lowest-of-the-low-lifes as a reference by which to measure your bad behavior.
This kind of demonstrates how foolishly and conveniently demeaning is your view of right-leaning VC commenters, that you imply these are such blurry lines that they can't tell the difference. Your distortion is glaring.
I have no interest in reading anything "profound" a bigot might go on to say after I mute them.
This is the sad truth with lawyers, judges and fake judges today.
The Democrat judge had to ignore the evidence of Lisa Cook committing more mortgage fraud while she was in office.
Just flat pretended it didn't exist.
Another "Trump Law" ruling that will get overruled by SCOTUS.
Cook got a preliminary injunction after asking for a TRO.
If Trump continues to try to remove her she is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to present her rebuttal after hearing the government's evidence against her. The court followed Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 on this point.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/09/nx-s1-5529281/appeals-court-lisa-cook-federal-reserve-independence-trump https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv2903-27
I can add, if Congress determines that she committed a disqualifying crime before being appointed, Congress can impeach her despite Trump's impotence on this matter.
Oliver North married Fawn Hall. If CNN decided I needed to know, I pass that on to you.
Ha ha! You wasted brain cells storing that!
Also, Oliver North is still alive?
He's 81. Fawn is 65.
Sounds like it could be a Hallmark movie.
Are you going to begrudge two senior citizens happiness?
Even the youngest Vietnam vets are 70.
Alive, and apparently doing better than you, or at least he isn't posting about your private life (you should get one, I hear they're on sale at Costco)
Aliens will invade in about 3 years, and I will save humanity. You can learn all about my life in myriad biographies and movies after that.
News reports say North's wife died last year.
This is the problem with having news 24/7. There is not enough news and so the public gets these nonstory fillers.
Just as a second thought to the question "is there really enough news for 24/7 coverage", I noted that Prof. Scott Galloway, NYU, noted recently that there isn't enough news or money to continue supporting separate news channels. He proposed that the networks combine to a single news network and leave it at that. More and more the public is discarding broadcast news for internet. And as a matter of fact that is where I hear the North-Hall wedding.
Jobs data was revised downward again, by a record 911,000 thousand jobs for the period from April 2024 thru March 2025.
I'm not going to make this a partisan talking point because its a pretty heavy lift to make.that case. 9 2/3 months of the revision perood were during the Biden Administration, 2 1/3 were Trump months, and they don't know where the errors occurred. None of the revision period was after Trump announced the liberation day tarrifs, so that wasn't it either.
"The preliminary estimate of the Current Employment Statistics (CES) national benchmark revision to total nonfarm employment for March 2025 is -911,000 (-0.6 percent), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The annual benchmark revisions over the last 10 years have an absolute average of 0.2 percent of total nonfarm employment."
Really the problem is the statistic is not fit for purpose, and their is too much noise in the stat the way it is reported to make it useable. Reuters reports for the Apr24 - Mar25 period:
"The revision estimate is equivalent to 76,000 fewer jobs per month. It implied that nonfarm payroll gains averaged about 71,000 per month, instead of 147,000. Economists had expected the estimated revision to be between 400,000 and 1 million jobs."
So probably a better way to report the data is 147,000 ± 52% new jobs, or perhaps even better total non farm payroll 159,000,000 ± 80,000.
Its ridiculous to report the delta in the change in payrolls when the margin of error can be greater than the change.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prebmk.nr0.htm
https://www.reuters.com/business/us-payrolls-benchmark-revision-estimate-suggests-labor-market-weaker-than-2025-09-09/
Or report it with a 3-6 month lag, in fact even though they are reporting on a revision to a reporting period that ended 6 months ago, the report title still makes it clear that its a preliminary revision:
"Current Employment Statistics Preliminary Benchmark (National) Summary".
Kaz...Markets rightly question BLS data, and not just here in employment. There is good reason to do so. That isn't good from an investment perspective. I'm watching the bond markets, not equity markets.
A better participation rate during the survey period would have given a more accurate employment data picture.
I don't know whether Trumps new BLS director can fix the problem, but something needs to be done. At the least they need to quit reporting the delta, the change in jobs from the previous month.
The average change in the revision period was supposedly 71,000 per month, that is 0.0445% of the total number of jobs. Their own reported average margin of error is .2%, but that understates it because the average margin is much less than what you would expect the margin to be any particular year, in fact last year the error was -.6, as far as they know. And there is no reason to expect the monthly margin of error would be less than the yearly.
You can't report a number that has a expected monthly change that is 1/5 the margin of error, not with a straight face.
I've been complaining about that myself for years, their reporting deltas on government statistics no sane person would think was accurate enough for them to be anything but noise.
The reported response rate is abysmal. I complete the monthly job surveys for 3 of my clients, none of which should be included in the statistical survey. Based on my observation, the sampling techniques used for the job survey data is pathetic junk. Its been a problem for a least the last 10 years.
Yes, I'm sure Trump's new BLS director will get right on that!
Could hardly do worse than Biden's BLS director.
Just like yesterday, I continue to marvel at all those Trumpists who seem to think that the correct response to an official who makes mistakes is to elect or appoint someone who isn't even trying to do the right thing. What is wrong with you people?
I would say here that some question exists as to what the previous BLS director thought the right thing was. Apparently not generating accurate numbers.
You know, at some point this unshakable presumption that every last thing Trump does is garbage turns you into a stopped clock people ignore; Like the stopped clock, you may occasionally be right, but you communicate no information.
Do you know who the last BLS Director was? Or that they did anything differently than the succession of directors before that? Under Trump the first time? Bush?
You’re making it partisan when it’s just your hot take on inflation.
Bad news for you is cooking the books doesn’t change the underlying macroeconomic reality.
No, it's true that the previous BLS cooking the books doesn't change the underlying economic reality. It just made the underlying economic reality look different, and resulted in policy being made on a basis other than the underlying reality.
Yes, your confident wrongness won't matter in the end.
But I am interested that you tried to tie it to Biden's administration. That's not at all true; this methodology did not start in 2020.
Which makes one wonder why you decided to add that bit of untrue mustard to your hot take?
The reason that Brett added the "untrue mustard" to his hot take is because he doesn't actually understand any of the issue, because of course he doesn't. This won't stop him from both a) commenting on the issue, and b) arguing that Trump did something correctly and Biden was at fault.
I already devoted a lot of time and words previously to explaining why the unprecedented assault on the BLS (the statistics) and the Fed are bad things. But that's the reality. We are in Trumpland now, were reality can't be acknowledged. Right?
We see this in operation every day. Seriously, look at Trump's birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein.
The WSJ reports it. The DOJ (Trump's people) knows that it exists.
What happens? Trump lies, denies, and sues (10 billion!). Even though he knew it existed and the article was accurate. And the lies were nonsensical- he didn't draw (he did, and there were contemporaneous doodles). He didn't use those words (he did, and there were contemporaneous examples).
Now that we have the card, he still is lying. It's not his signature? Well, the problem with that is that there are literally scores of contemporaneous signatures that match it. Heck, there are other signed notes from Trump to Epstein with the same signature.
Yet we have people like Brett who keep saying, "Look, you can't believe your lying eyes. Biden. Hillary."
Anyway, for people that are actually curious, you can go and find a lot of people in the economics field who can tell you about the BLS and the Fed without a partisan axe to grind. And it won't matter what end of the ideological spectrum they are on. They all know it's bad. I'd argue that even within Trumpdom, the schism between Bessent and Pulte is probably the single most important thing to follow, because that will determine whether our economy suck, or turns into a burning crater of ash.
At this point, I'm seriously rooting for just "sucks."
loki13 said:
"I already devoted a lot of time and words previously to explaining why the unprecedented assault on the BLS (the statistics) and the Fed are bad things. But that's the reality. We are in Trumpland now, were reality can't be acknowledged. Right?"
It seems the nesting reply system won't let me reply directly to this comment above. So...
To the related issue of the motivation for this attack on the BLS (and justification for a replacement commissioner), I'd note that the BLS is responsible for more than labor statistics. Among other things, it's also responsible for inflation statistics. I haven't seen that point made often.
I think it's easy to see why the current administration might like the idea of having a person of its choosing overseeing the agency responsible for inflation numbers going forward.
I’ve posted versions of this before, but it’s worth repeating: these aren’t “Biden numbers” or “Trump numbers.” CES and CPI methodologies have been in place for decades, refined at the margins but fundamentally consistent. The survey response rate drop during COVID, for instance, has forced heavier reliance on imputation, but that’s not partisan tinkering — it’s a documented, transparent adjustment.
Where I think there is room for innovation is in how CES handles volatility. I’ve suggested before that they could layer in a regime-switching model — one mode for “normal” response conditions, another for “volatile” conditions like shocks or low response rates. That would make revisions more predictable and signal to analysts how much weight to place on preliminary data.
To be fair, BLS may already be doing something akin to regime switching — adjusting estimation techniques depending on whether response conditions are “normal” or unusually volatile. For example, they’ve published documentation on rotating imputation methods and adjusting birth-death models when shocks hit.
The point being: the solution is methodological, not partisan. The strength of CES is its granularity by industry — that’s what markets and policymakers actually rely on. Undermining the credibility of the whole system by treating it as a partisan scoreboard only hurts everyone.
Nobody cooked the books, you idiot.
I don't doubt its been a clownshow for a long long time.
“Man who just discovered the Bureau of Labor Statistics yesterday has big opinions about it”
Regarding the "mustard" in the comment below, is loki still in the mood for a hot pretzel?
Why do you think the previous BLS commissioner didn't think generating accurate numbers was the right thing to do?
She only held the position for a year and a half and the revisions processes worked the same under her as they had under previous commissioners.
I'll run the numbers when I get a chance. But my sense is that the mean monthly revisions under her were more or less in line with what those mean monthly revisions have been historically. And I say that having followed the numbers pretty closely for a long time. But, again, I'll get some more definitive numbers when I get a couple minutes.
Added: She'll really only have one annual benchmark revision for the period she held the position. The last revision was for March 2024 and she took office at the end of January that year. Further, magnitude of the revision for March 2025 (assuming the number isn't revised back up some in February 2026) will be within the range we've historically seen, though at the high end of that range (-0.7%).
Exactly — the revisions that got waved around were still within the published 90% confidence interval. CES is built that way: you get timeliness and industry detail, but you also get revisions. That’s not “bad numbers,” that’s the survey design. I know I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but it’s worth keeping the mechanics in view.
To follow up...
The mean absolute monthly revisions (SA) for the period during which Ms. McEntarfer was BLS Commissioner (February 2024 through July 2025, though we only have the first revision for July 2025):
Total Second Revision (i.e. from first to third estimate): 54,000 First Revision (i.e. from first to second estimate): 30,000
For all monthly revisions going back to 1979:
Total Second Revison: 57,000 First Revision: 40,000
Oh horseshit, Brett.
You know nothing about the job or what goes into it or whether the results were accurate.
You just open wide and swallow whatever crap Trump dishes out.
Amazing how many newly minted experts on reporting economic data have suddenly shown up here.
Kaz...Markets rightly question BLS data, and not just here in employment.
Citation needed.
Markets understand the limitations of the survey methodology, and most of the professionals I've hard speak on the topic seem pretty happy with the work the BLS has been doing. Almost all of the criticism I've seen has been from politicians or partisans.
Agreed. That's a nonsense statement.
It's hard to take that comment seriously. In fact, one of the biggest recent "scandals" in BLS history was in 2024. I'm positive that most people here who confidently talk about the BLS don't actually have any idea what happened.
Well, the BLS data is always guarded carefully and released publicly at a set time. Why? BECAUSE THE MARKETS VERY MUCH CARE. Anyway, two issues came up in 2024. One incident involved the accidental upload of a some files that contained the data to its website 30 minutes early. The other involved a delay in getting the data out, and before the public release, some analysts called the BLS and were able to receive the data.
It's almost like this data ... moves markets. That it's incredibly important because it has been seen as credible (despite the known limitations in the early data which gets refined, aka, revised, as additional information comes in). And that Wall Street is constantly looking to get an edge of even a few minutes to get that data.
Ugh. How is it that people make such confident statements about things that they don't understand? I truly do not understand this.
The markets don't care about Trump's economic fuckery as much as expected, though.
The articles I've read that speculate why end up with there being a tacit agreement that everyone benefits if they pretend for a while. TACO caught on mainstream, but started as a market rationalization.
So our financial institutions are acting like Wiley Coyote continuing to run well after the cliff has run out. They should know better, but pretending they don't keeps things going for a bit longer.
It reminds me of Enron's final days.
Lotsa vibes at work in that comment.
Nice.
I don't think that's it. I think that the markets don't think that the BLS numbers are being messed with ... yet.
It's like the market not pricing in Trump's action with the Fed. The market is continuing to believe that despite the bluster and the actual attempted ouster of Cook, the Bessent wing will prevail and the Fed will maintain its independence.
Of course, the problem with the market pricing in its belief that things are not going to happen ... is that if these things suddenly happen (BLS suddenly produces bizarre numbers, changes its schedule or methodology, or Cook gets removed and Trump loyalists remake the Board of Governors and the Fed Reserve Banks with their majority) the reaction will be, IMO, swift and severe.
But that's, just, like, my opinion, man.
Kaz...Markets rightly question BLS data, and not just here in employment. There is good reason to do so.
What leads you to that conclusion, besides Trump-worship? What do you claim that markets question BLS data? Do you have any clue as to BLS' methods?
"I'm not going to make this a partisan talking point because its a pretty heavy lift to make.that case. 9 2/3 months of the revision perood were during the Biden Administration, 2 1/3 were Trump months, and they don't know where the errors occurred."
About 7 months ago, based on data that was all from before Trump, the BLS revised the numbers for 2024 down 600K. So, while you can't prove that none of the error was during Trump's months, you can be reasonably sure most of it wasn't.
But, really, the only valid conclusion is that the BLS numbers are too unreliable to be a basis for policy.
The question is, how long have they been garbage, and was it deliberate or incompetence?
That annual revision of -598,000 (reported in February 2025) for March 2024 was an upward revision from the preliminary revision of -818,000 that was released in September 2025. We'll have to wait until next February to see what the actual annual revision for March 2025 will be.
That said, yeah, most of the revision will be attributable to periods during which President Biden was in office.
The QCEW data used for the revisions, in what is essentially a baselining process, isn't available in near real-time. It comes out many months later and relies on reporting from state agencies. But it's from a census rather than a sample survey, so it's assumed to be more accurate. I question that assumption going forward because, with higher UI rates, some establishments may be inclined to try to find ways to cheat.
At any rate, we're still talking about revisions which, in the worst cases, are well below 1%. And we've been seeing revisions on this scale (i.e., 0.3 - 0.7%) for as long as this annual benchmarking process has been used - going back over 4 decades. We had an annual revision of -489,000 during President Trump's first term and we've now seen (or rather will soon see) two relatively large negative adjustments as well as one relatively large positive adjustment during President Biden's term.
The original numbers reported by the BLS come out in near real-time. As I cursorily tried to explain in a different post, in some cases the numbers being reported are for payroll periods which only ended a few days before they were reported and which rely on (mostly) voluntary self-reporting from private businesses. Yet those numbers turn out to be remarkably accurate.
Where the problem comes in is when people try to make too much of individual month over month changes. Those are of course very noisy because derived month over month changes are very small compared to the total numbers which are being measured. A very small revision to the total numbers can mean a substantial revision for a given month over month change. That's why the BLS is clear that there's a large confidence interval (for month over month changes) that should be considered and that changes which don't fall outside that confidence interval shouldn't be considered statistical significant. Pundits and advocates, of course, can't be bothered to mention such things when doing so wouldn't further the narratives they're peddling.
All that said, the quick reporting from the BLS (followed by refinement as time goes on) is still quite valuable I think. We should just take it for what its worth, and what it's actually claimed to be, rather then trying to make too much of single data points. Even considering a confidence interval of, e.g., +/-130,000, a reported change of +150,000 suggests something different than a reported change of -50,000 does. And reported monthly changes trending up or down over several months likely accurately tells us something we might want to know.
If anything the annual benchmarking process confirms the reliability of the sampling process. Given the nature of the data initially available, and the need for modeling related to new business creation and existing business closure, the numbers turn out to be pretty accurate.
I would like to ask a question (of everyone interested) though. To the extent we think any of this innacurate-to-be-revised-later reporting is deliberate, which way is an intentionally initially better (to be revised worse later) number supposed to cut? Is it to make the presiding administration look better or worse? Because I'm hearing conflicting takes on this. Initially higher numbers, later revised lower, apparently mean one thing (or nothing at all) when it happens under President Trump. But they mean the opposite when they happen under President Biden?
You're hearing conflicting takes because it's all political nonsense. As you point out, no one's even making an attempt to appear logically consistent. They just apply their partisan lens to whatever the data is.
Yeah, as an example of how logically inconsistent the rhetorical takes specifically related to this issue have been I'd make this point (which I alluded to in the previous post).
You've probably heard the suggestion that the Biden Administration intentionally over reported payrolls numbers to make him look better before the election only to have a huge downward revision to them (for the period through March 2024) be reported after the election in February 2025. The problem with that suggestion is that the revision reported in February 2025 was actually an upward change from the preliminary revision which had been reported in September 2024 - just a couple months before the election.
So, if we're gonna assume intentionality, it would seem someone at the BLS was trying make President Biden look bad by suggesting that fewer jobs had been created under him than what was ultimately determined to be the case.
Thumbs on scales can only go so far before the owner of the thumb gets caught.
This response is absolutely hilarious and sad.
Such a clever response that it does not actually have anything to do with what Tilted wrote.
That's a pretty good point I had missed -
It's taken as a signal of bad faith if the numbers are revised up OR if the numbers are revised down.
That is amusingly overdetermined.
Are you an economist? Your explanation is pretty good! I will admit I had to be lead through the methodology explanation by my economist wife. Stats have never been that intuitive for me.
I'm not an economist, at least not by profession.
But I pre-retired from real work at a very young age and started day trading and investing in stocks as something to do to pretend I still had a job. That, and an inclination to tear things apart to figure out how they worked, led me to diving deep into how various economic measures work and what they actually mean.
Thanks, Tilted. You’ve engaged the mechanics here more than almost anyone else I’ve seen. I’ve posted my own commentary with cites and links back to the BLS CES site, and yeah — sometimes it feels like howling into the void. But keep it up. You’re doing the Lord’s work by being substantive.
You're welcome and thanks to you as well.
The first paragraph should indicate that the preliminary revision of -818,000 was released in September 2024, not in September 2025.
I dont have a take on whether politics drives the BLS revisions or not (most likely not) That being said, the statistical sampling problems have existed for at least the last 10 years with a combination of low response rates, poor sampling techniques, expansion of sample size to offset the low response rates (which actually makes the statistical validity worse). I have been completing the job survey for 3 of my clients, which due to the type business activity are very poor samples for use in a job survey.
I wouldn't consider the ultimate response rate abysmal (as I think you stated in a different comment), considering the huge size of, and variety of circumstances within, the targeted sample and that in most of the country it's voluntary for the private entities being asked. It has no doubt declined substantially since The Covid Experience though.
That said, what would you suggest to increase the response rate? Making it mandatory? Compensating respondents? Other?
I dont know how to resolve or improve the statistical validity of the sample. That being said, the agency inertia with the continuation of the same problems , is reason to terminate the head of the BLS
Oddly, Trump justified it using a completely different reason:
"On social media Trump claimed that Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), had "RIGGED" jobs figures "to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad"."
Spam - I am not stating the mcenarfer goosed the numbers, primarly because the bls has at least a 10 year history of bad statistical methodology, though the two years in a row of large downward adjustments certainly give the appearance of goosing the numbers.
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the lawsuits challenging President Trump's authority to unilaterally impose tariffs and has put the matter on a fast track, with oral argument scheduled for early November. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/090925zr1_hejm.pdf
This will tell us whether SCOTUS is or is not totally in the tank for Trump.
It will tell you no such thing = This will tell us whether SCOTUS is or is not totally in the tank for Trump.
This case will tell us whether the constitutional separation of powers means anything to SCOTUS or not. Even in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, (2024), Trump's handmaid John Roberts opined that "No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily 'stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. Youngstown [Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,] 343 U.S. [579,] 585 [(1952).]"
NG, the case will tell me whether the Justices have any common sense or not. I don't think the Justices will sign up for an economy crash caused by extreme uncertainty rolling back trillions in economic structural changes b/c of a judicial decision.
There is an element of pragmatism in constitutional interpretation, no?
Let's say rather than use the IEEPA, Trump has said 'on my executive power as the president, I'm creating these tariffs.' No Act of Congress, just a claim the President can do this now. Would you still argue the SCOTUS should just pragmatically shrug and guess tariff power belongs to the President now? Would the damage be so great they just have to accept this?
I think the answer's no. And if the answer is no, why is the answer different just because Trump gestures vaguely at a law that doesn't even mention tariffs?
Would you still argue the SCOTUS should just pragmatically shrug and guess tariff power belongs to the President now?
If the president were Trump, absolutely XY would so argue.
Are you just trolling now? This can't be a serious response.
First, Trump himself changes the tariffs on a whim. A consistent problem with his tariff "policy" is that no one can guess what tariffs are going to be on any given country a few months from now. He's paused and unpaused massive tariff changes over and over again. If uncertainty about tariff policy was going to crash the economy, Trump would be the #1 culprit and it should be happening already.
Second, the theory here is that if the President does an illegal thing that's big enough, the Supreme Court just has to defer to it? This creates an incredibly perverse incentive to do illegal things in the biggest way possible. And to the extent the courts wanted to preserve their review role at all, it would mean that there should be a much stronger bias towards injunctions that preserve the status quo to prevent this sort of dilemma.
It's astonishing that you worry about uncertainty and yet back Trump. His random changes are responsible for a hell of a lot of uncertainty, but that doesn't bother you.
I'd say if they throw out the tariffs they are restoring stability. And it won't create a crash. How could it?
Do you think it's a good idea for a President to impose trillions in taxes on Americans with no authority whatsoever, based on his whims and ignorance of how tariffs work?
I guess you do. Trump did it, so it must be OK. Right, XY.
Not entirely. If they throw out the tariffs, but let the birthright EO stand I'd still say they are in the tank.
This case will tell us whether the constitutional separation of powers means anything to SCOTUS or not.
I predict SCOTUS will do no such thing. It will instead deliver some muddle which leaves unclear what Trump's tariff power is, while making the Court's authority weaker than before.
If I were dramatically wrong, and the Court ruled Congress owns the entire tariff power, and cannot delegate any of it—which will not happen—can any MAGA identify any harm that would do to the nation?
You mean after it already gave him complete immunity from any consequences that might follow from any illegal activity?
It did not do that, of course.
"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts"
That's just a lot of words for "Trump can do whatever he likes", and you know it. Anytime someone points at something and suggests it might be an "unofficial act", we will all miraculously discover (after years of litigation) that it isn't.
No, it's a lot of words for "You can't prosecute a President for exercising the powers of his office, but if he does shoot somebody on 5th avenue, knock yourself out."
Look, there's no point in lying about what the Court ruled. Just because you assume it's all pretext and if Trump actually DOES shoot somebody on 5th avenue they'll rationalize that it's an official act doesn't change what they actually ruled.
And what they actually ruled falls well short of absolute immunity for absolutely anything.
LOL, he's the commander in chief of the armed forces, and can seemingly send the armed forces into any city he likes. Why on earth would you think that shooting someone on 5th avenue isn't an official act?
Yeah, and Obama had US citizens murdered, and got away with it because they weren't on US soil at the time. Whether a President could get away with murdering a US citizen on US soil is something I'd rather remained undetermined, though I privately suspect it has already happened more than once.
But the Court did not rule as you said, and that's unambiguous.
But Obama!
Yeah, Presidents murdering American citizens isn't purely hypothetical, news at 11.
BUT your typical bullshit!
It doesn't take Brett years of litigation. He will pronounce it an official act immediately, as will the other cultists here.
Bernard, That is a unfalsifiable assertion.
Martinned 4 hours ago
"You mean after it already gave him complete immunity from any consequences that might follow from any illegal activity?"
Martin - repeating a false statement does not make the false statement true. Absolutely nothing in the SC opinion said a president's has immunity from illegal activity.
LOL, that's one way around it. But if Trump does it, it isn't illegal (because Calvinball), so I guess we'll never know. (Or at least not until someday there's a non-Trumpist in the White House again.)
Your original statement is false - your response is a continuation of that false premise. Nor does your attempted justification absolve your of your original lie
Why would the president require immunity for legal activity?
Possibly two votes for the idea of implicit delegation - that is, if the president act as though he'd been delegated authority that he had not explicitly been delegated, but Congress has not acted to stop him in any reasonable time, why, they have implicitly delegated that authority consistent with history and tradition.
Possibly another two or three votes for the idea that the president has the delegated authority from some other combination of acts and that he wrongly used IEEPA as justification doesn't make his actions unconstitutional.
My goodness, do you remember the caterwauling about Obama and the so-called Imperial Presidency and governing through executive order? I do! From some of the people here- you know, the same ones that constantly said that Obama was going to use troops on Americans, or was federalizing state law, or was ... I dunno, rounding people off the streets and putting them in camps? Probably with jackbooted and masked federal agents?
It would be funny if it wasn't sad. It just shows you that there were never any principles at stake. It's just pure spite.
Didn't executive orders start as internal memos? Now it seems they’ve turned into more of a public performance. With policymaking seeming to shift into the executive branch over time, the theater at least makes it visible.
Loki, "do you remember ...the so-called Imperial Presidency." Indeed I do and the impulse and execution have been a ratchet with any caterwauling arising from partisan considerations.
I don’t think tariff rates should ever be set by the executive. Article I puts the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” squarely in Congress. Tariffs are taxes on imports — period.
The executive’s role is to carry out the law, not to decide who pays how much. If Congress wants flexibility, it can write schedules with explicit triggers. But delegating the taxing power out of convenience isn’t pragmatism, it’s abandoning responsibility.
I know it’s not the most pragmatic view, but that’s how I see it.
To be honest, I take the same view of “plenary power.” If it’s not explicitly delegated in the Constitution, then there’s no authority to exercise. Everything else belongs to the states or the people.
They sped things along. As they didn't for the Trump immunity & financial cases. They can go fast when it suits.
How does the Federal death penalty deal with mental illness.
That savage in Charlotte needs to die. Sane people don't murder pretty little girls.
moot point. there are enough white liberals, joggers, beaners and other genetic defectives to get a democrat in office over the next 20 years, and he'll commute all death sentences the way the faggot joe biden did.
Per 18 U.S.C. § 17:
(a) Affirmative Defense.— It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. (b) Burden of Proof.— The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
(a) Affirmative Defense.— It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.
(b) Burden of Proof.— The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
This statute was enacted in the wake of John Hinckley's acquittal in the shooting of President Reagan.
In the event of a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, 18 U.S.C. § 4243 provides:
(a) Determination of Present Mental Condition of Acquitted Person.— If a person is found not guilty only by reason of insanity at the time of the offense charged, he shall be committed to a suitable facility until such time as he is eligible for release pursuant to subsection (e). (b) Psychiatric or Psychological Examination and Report.— Prior to the date of the hearing, pursuant to subsection (c), the court shall order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(b) and (c). (c) Hearing.— A hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d) and shall take place not later than forty days following the special verdict. (d) Burden of Proof.— In a hearing pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, a person found not guilty only by reason of insanity of an offense involving bodily injury to, or serious damage to the property of, another person, or involving a substantial risk of such injury or damage, has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to a present mental disease or defect. With respect to any other offense, the person has the burden of such proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (e) Determination and Disposition.—If, after the hearing, the court fails to find by the standard specified in subsection (d) of this section that the person’s release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to a present mental disease or defect, the court shall commit the person to the custody of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall release the person to the appropriate official of the State in which the person is domiciled or was tried if such State will assume responsibility for his custody, care, and treatment. The Attorney General shall make all reasonable efforts to cause such a State to assume such responsibility. If, notwithstanding such efforts, neither such State will assume such responsibility, the Attorney General shall hospitalize the person for treatment in a suitable facility until— (1) such a State will assume such responsibility; or (2) the person’s mental condition is such that his release, or his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another; whichever is earlier. The Attorney General shall continue periodically to exert all reasonable efforts to cause such a State to assume such responsibility for the person’s custody, care, and treatment. (f) Discharge.—When the director of the facility in which an acquitted person is hospitalized pursuant to subsection (e) determines that the person has recovered from his mental disease or defect to such an extent that his release, or his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, he shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The clerk shall send a copy of the certificate to the person’s counsel and to the attorney for the Government. The court shall order the discharge of the acquitted person or, on the motion of the attorney for the Government or on its own motion, shall hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine whether he should be released. If, after the hearing, the court finds by the standard specified in subsection (d) that the person has recovered from his mental disease or defect to such an extent that— (1) his release would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, the court shall order that he be immediately discharged; or (2) his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, the court shall— (A) order that he be conditionally discharged under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment that has been prepared for him, that has been certified to the court as appropriate by the director of the facility in which he is committed, and that has been found by the court to be appropriate; and (B) order, as an explicit condition of release, that he comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment. The court at any time may, after a hearing employing the same criteria, modify or eliminate the regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment. (g) Revocation of Conditional Discharge.— The director of a medical facility responsible for administering a regimen imposed on an acquitted person conditionally discharged under subsection (f) shall notify the Attorney General and the court having jurisdiction over the person of any failure of the person to comply with the regimen. Upon such notice, or upon other probable cause to believe that the person has failed to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, the person may be arrested, and, upon arrest, shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the court having jurisdiction over him. The court shall, after a hearing, determine whether the person should be remanded to a suitable facility on the ground that, in light of his failure to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, his continued release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another. (h) Limitations on Furloughs.—An individual who is hospitalized under subsection (e) of this section after being found not guilty only by reason of insanity of an offense for which subsection (d) of this section creates a burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence, may leave temporarily the premises of the facility in which that individual is hospitalized only— (1) with the approval of the committing court, upon notice to the attorney for the Government and such individual, and after opportunity for a hearing; (2) in an emergency; or (3) when accompanied by a Federal law enforcement officer (as defined in section 115 of this title). (i) Certain Persons Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity in the District of Columbia.— (1) Transfer to custody of the attorney general.— Notwithstanding section 301(h) of title 24 of the District of Columbia Code, and notwithstanding subsection 4247(j) of this title, all persons who have been committed to a hospital for the mentally ill pursuant to section 301(d)(1) of title 24 of the District of Columbia Code, and for whom the United States has continuing financial responsibility, may be transferred to the custody of the Attorney General, who shall hospitalize the person for treatment in a suitable facility. (2) Application.— (A) In general.— The Attorney General may establish custody over such persons by filing an application in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, demonstrating that the person to be transferred is a person described in this subsection. (B) Notice.— The Attorney General shall, by any means reasonably designed to do so, provide written notice of the proposed transfer of custody to such person or such person’s guardian, legal representative, or other lawful agent. The person to be transferred shall be afforded an opportunity, not to exceed 15 days, to respond to the proposed transfer of custody, and may, at the court’s discretion, be afforded a hearing on the proposed transfer of custody. Such hearing, if granted, shall be limited to a determination of whether the constitutional rights of such person would be violated by the proposed transfer of custody. (C) Order.— Upon application of the Attorney General, the court shall order the person transferred to the custody of the Attorney General, unless, pursuant to a hearing under this paragraph, the court finds that the proposed transfer would violate a right of such person under the United States Constitution. (D) Effect.—Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to— (i) create in any person a liberty interest in being granted a hearing or notice on any matter; (ii) create in favor of any person a cause of action against the United States or any officer or employee of the United States; or (iii)limit in any manner or degree the ability of the Attorney General to move, transfer, or otherwise manage any person committed to the custody of the Attorney General. (3) Construction with other sections.— Subsections (f) and (g) and section 4247 shall apply to any person transferred to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to this subsection.
(a) Determination of Present Mental Condition of Acquitted Person.— If a person is found not guilty only by reason of insanity at the time of the offense charged, he shall be committed to a suitable facility until such time as he is eligible for release pursuant to subsection (e).
(b) Psychiatric or Psychological Examination and Report.— Prior to the date of the hearing, pursuant to subsection (c), the court shall order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(b) and (c).
(c) Hearing.— A hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d) and shall take place not later than forty days following the special verdict.
(d) Burden of Proof.— In a hearing pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, a person found not guilty only by reason of insanity of an offense involving bodily injury to, or serious damage to the property of, another person, or involving a substantial risk of such injury or damage, has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to a present mental disease or defect. With respect to any other offense, the person has the burden of such proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
(e) Determination and Disposition.—If, after the hearing, the court fails to find by the standard specified in subsection (d) of this section that the person’s release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to a present mental disease or defect, the court shall commit the person to the custody of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall release the person to the appropriate official of the State in which the person is domiciled or was tried if such State will assume responsibility for his custody, care, and treatment. The Attorney General shall make all reasonable efforts to cause such a State to assume such responsibility. If, notwithstanding such efforts, neither such State will assume such responsibility, the Attorney General shall hospitalize the person for treatment in a suitable facility until—
(1) such a State will assume such responsibility; or (2) the person’s mental condition is such that his release, or his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another; whichever is earlier. The Attorney General shall continue periodically to exert all reasonable efforts to cause such a State to assume such responsibility for the person’s custody, care, and treatment.
(1) such a State will assume such responsibility; or (2) the person’s mental condition is such that his release, or his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another;
whichever is earlier. The Attorney General shall continue periodically to exert all reasonable efforts to cause such a State to assume such responsibility for the person’s custody, care, and treatment.
(f) Discharge.—When the director of the facility in which an acquitted person is hospitalized pursuant to subsection (e) determines that the person has recovered from his mental disease or defect to such an extent that his release, or his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, he shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The clerk shall send a copy of the certificate to the person’s counsel and to the attorney for the Government. The court shall order the discharge of the acquitted person or, on the motion of the attorney for the Government or on its own motion, shall hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine whether he should be released. If, after the hearing, the court finds by the standard specified in subsection (d) that the person has recovered from his mental disease or defect to such an extent that—
(1) his release would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, the court shall order that he be immediately discharged; or (2) his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, the court shall— (A) order that he be conditionally discharged under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment that has been prepared for him, that has been certified to the court as appropriate by the director of the facility in which he is committed, and that has been found by the court to be appropriate; and (B) order, as an explicit condition of release, that he comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment. The court at any time may, after a hearing employing the same criteria, modify or eliminate the regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.
(1) his release would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, the court shall order that he be immediately discharged; or (2) his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, the court shall—
(A) order that he be conditionally discharged under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment that has been prepared for him, that has been certified to the court as appropriate by the director of the facility in which he is committed, and that has been found by the court to be appropriate; and (B) order, as an explicit condition of release, that he comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.
(A) order that he be conditionally discharged under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment that has been prepared for him, that has been certified to the court as appropriate by the director of the facility in which he is committed, and that has been found by the court to be appropriate; and
(B) order, as an explicit condition of release, that he comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.
The court at any time may, after a hearing employing the same criteria, modify or eliminate the regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.
(g) Revocation of Conditional Discharge.— The director of a medical facility responsible for administering a regimen imposed on an acquitted person conditionally discharged under subsection (f) shall notify the Attorney General and the court having jurisdiction over the person of any failure of the person to comply with the regimen. Upon such notice, or upon other probable cause to believe that the person has failed to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, the person may be arrested, and, upon arrest, shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the court having jurisdiction over him. The court shall, after a hearing, determine whether the person should be remanded to a suitable facility on the ground that, in light of his failure to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, his continued release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another.
(h) Limitations on Furloughs.—An individual who is hospitalized under subsection (e) of this section after being found not guilty only by reason of insanity of an offense for which subsection (d) of this section creates a burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence, may leave temporarily the premises of the facility in which that individual is hospitalized only—
(1) with the approval of the committing court, upon notice to the attorney for the Government and such individual, and after opportunity for a hearing; (2) in an emergency; or (3) when accompanied by a Federal law enforcement officer (as defined in section 115 of this title).
(i) Certain Persons Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity in the District of Columbia.—
(1) Transfer to custody of the attorney general.— Notwithstanding section 301(h) of title 24 of the District of Columbia Code, and notwithstanding subsection 4247(j) of this title, all persons who have been committed to a hospital for the mentally ill pursuant to section 301(d)(1) of title 24 of the District of Columbia Code, and for whom the United States has continuing financial responsibility, may be transferred to the custody of the Attorney General, who shall hospitalize the person for treatment in a suitable facility. (2) Application.— (A) In general.— The Attorney General may establish custody over such persons by filing an application in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, demonstrating that the person to be transferred is a person described in this subsection. (B) Notice.— The Attorney General shall, by any means reasonably designed to do so, provide written notice of the proposed transfer of custody to such person or such person’s guardian, legal representative, or other lawful agent. The person to be transferred shall be afforded an opportunity, not to exceed 15 days, to respond to the proposed transfer of custody, and may, at the court’s discretion, be afforded a hearing on the proposed transfer of custody. Such hearing, if granted, shall be limited to a determination of whether the constitutional rights of such person would be violated by the proposed transfer of custody. (C) Order.— Upon application of the Attorney General, the court shall order the person transferred to the custody of the Attorney General, unless, pursuant to a hearing under this paragraph, the court finds that the proposed transfer would violate a right of such person under the United States Constitution. (D) Effect.—Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to— (i) create in any person a liberty interest in being granted a hearing or notice on any matter; (ii) create in favor of any person a cause of action against the United States or any officer or employee of the United States; or (iii)limit in any manner or degree the ability of the Attorney General to move, transfer, or otherwise manage any person committed to the custody of the Attorney General. (3) Construction with other sections.— Subsections (f) and (g) and section 4247 shall apply to any person transferred to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to this subsection.
(1) Transfer to custody of the attorney general.— Notwithstanding section 301(h) of title 24 of the District of Columbia Code, and notwithstanding subsection 4247(j) of this title, all persons who have been committed to a hospital for the mentally ill pursuant to section 301(d)(1) of title 24 of the District of Columbia Code, and for whom the United States has continuing financial responsibility, may be transferred to the custody of the Attorney General, who shall hospitalize the person for treatment in a suitable facility. (2) Application.—
(A) In general.— The Attorney General may establish custody over such persons by filing an application in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, demonstrating that the person to be transferred is a person described in this subsection. (B) Notice.— The Attorney General shall, by any means reasonably designed to do so, provide written notice of the proposed transfer of custody to such person or such person’s guardian, legal representative, or other lawful agent. The person to be transferred shall be afforded an opportunity, not to exceed 15 days, to respond to the proposed transfer of custody, and may, at the court’s discretion, be afforded a hearing on the proposed transfer of custody. Such hearing, if granted, shall be limited to a determination of whether the constitutional rights of such person would be violated by the proposed transfer of custody. (C) Order.— Upon application of the Attorney General, the court shall order the person transferred to the custody of the Attorney General, unless, pursuant to a hearing under this paragraph, the court finds that the proposed transfer would violate a right of such person under the United States Constitution. (D) Effect.—Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to— (i) create in any person a liberty interest in being granted a hearing or notice on any matter; (ii) create in favor of any person a cause of action against the United States or any officer or employee of the United States; or (iii)limit in any manner or degree the ability of the Attorney General to move, transfer, or otherwise manage any person committed to the custody of the Attorney General. (3) Construction with other sections.— Subsections (f) and (g) and section 4247 shall apply to any person transferred to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to this subsection.
(A) In general.— The Attorney General may establish custody over such persons by filing an application in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, demonstrating that the person to be transferred is a person described in this subsection. (B) Notice.— The Attorney General shall, by any means reasonably designed to do so, provide written notice of the proposed transfer of custody to such person or such person’s guardian, legal representative, or other lawful agent. The person to be transferred shall be afforded an opportunity, not to exceed 15 days, to respond to the proposed transfer of custody, and may, at the court’s discretion, be afforded a hearing on the proposed transfer of custody. Such hearing, if granted, shall be limited to a determination of whether the constitutional rights of such person would be violated by the proposed transfer of custody. (C) Order.— Upon application of the Attorney General, the court shall order the person transferred to the custody of the Attorney General, unless, pursuant to a hearing under this paragraph, the court finds that the proposed transfer would violate a right of such person under the United States Constitution. (D) Effect.—Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to—
(i) create in any person a liberty interest in being granted a hearing or notice on any matter; (ii) create in favor of any person a cause of action against the United States or any officer or employee of the United States; or (iii)limit in any manner or degree the ability of the Attorney General to move, transfer, or otherwise manage any person committed to the custody of the Attorney General.
(3) Construction with other sections.— Subsections (f) and (g) and section 4247 shall apply to any person transferred to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to this subsection.
Nice nested block quotes!
Clownish. Why don’t you just cut and paste the entire US Criminal Code?
Copy/paste doesn't include the "blockquote" tags. He'd have to add them manually.
His formatting is impeccable.
That he would go through extra effort in this pointless exercise only further beclowns him.
Only a fake bot would bemoan excellence.
Laken Riley Iryna Zarutska Tiny Microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt
What do the deceased have in common? What do the killers have in common?
Nothing gets the white supremacist hayseeds as riled up as a little wolf whistle Emmett Till action
If Cancer can be caused by Telekinesis better find a good Oncologist, I'm sure your "Hood" is full of them.
I live three blocks from the Cleveland Clinic, Frankie. Plenty of real doctors in there
Who knew the Cleveland Clinic was located in the hood?
All of Cleveland is a hood...including all the surroundings of the Clinic
So your claim to be a white hood rat is bullshit like the rest of your comments?
"Who knew the Cleveland Clinic was located in the hood?"
It borders run down areas, Hough to north, Fairfax to south so you could describe it as "in the hood". Hough and Fairfax are not bad by Cleveland standards though.
They got a cure for Glioblastoma yet?
The better question is why the left either ignores the murder of a Ukrainan refugee who was targeted because of her race by a career criminal or tries to discredit anyone calling attention to the vile racist crime. Because the left is comprised of contemptible bastards. Some more contemptible than others. But all bastards to some degree.
If only Putin had dropped a bomb on her, instead...
Please post a url to the video of Emmitt Till brutally murdering a woman less than half his size.
So you would favour executing the mentally ill.
I favor executing sub-human killers like this.
when they commit brutal crimes? absolutely
Right. I don't see the issue here.
They don't murder ugly girls or boys or even older folks. What is you point Mr. Ed?
At what point does a DC like Boston's Mayor Wooo get arrested?
When he and the people of Boston "yield" to the armed forces, the way the Speaker of the House of Representatives wants them to.
Martin, If you are going to comment on local U.S. politics, at least get the mayor's gender correct.
"At what point does a DC like Boston's Mayor Wooo [sic] get arrested?"
What statute(s) do you contend that the mayor has violated? And what do you mean by "a DC"?
Try 18 U.S. Code § 1072
"Dumb" is only half a word.
By similar token, is the second half of your name "eot"?
"iot"?
That would be my guess, but not a sure one. I'm gonna keep working this one in my head so if it ever gets clarified, it'll still be too late.
Why would she get arrested, and why does Trump want to send the NG to Boston?
Not to fight crime. Boston is one of the safest cities in the country.
I guess it's just showing off his power. Asshole.
Tomorrow is Sept 11th
Well spotted. Good to know you can use a calendar.
Well, I did have some doubts on that score, after some of the things he's posted.
(what I'd say if that remark was directed at me) "Too bad you can't use Soap" and go ahead, give me your response, it's AlGores Interwebs, you can use AI, Youtubes, and I'll still murder you (figuratively) with my counterpunch, so go ahead, say something, I dare you, I double dog dare you, I Triple Rabid Foaming at the Mouth Dog-Dare you!!!
Frink
Report: Hamas leaders Khaled Mashal, Nizar Awadallah & Zaher Jabarin killed in Doha
Let's hope so. No human animal that belongs to hamas is safe, no matter where they are.
You realise they were there to do peace negotiations with Israel, right?
The negotiations are over, eurotrash.
Only death and misery await hamas.
They are now, definitely.
They were over before they began, Hamas has no history of actually complying with the results of negotiations.
Brett Bellmore, ladies and gentlemen! Well-known expert on the Middle-East, who knows much more about Hamas than [checks notes] the Israeli government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Gaza_war_ceasefire
"Were" is the operative word in that sentence.
Martinned: "You realise [Hamas leaders] were there to do peace negotiations with Israel, right?"
You know Hamas' position on Israel, right?
I do. What does that have to do with the sovereignty of Qatar?
Nothing. But it has everything to do with your remark, which falsely represented Hamas's purpose in being there.
And as a simple exercise, please state very briefly (i.e. in one sentence) what Hamas's position is regarding the state we call "Israel."
Dance, Obfuscation Boy! Dance!
That does not excuse their crime against humanity.
Reports are a Trump aide warned Qatar before the strike, but somehow the warning wasn't passed on.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-decision-strike-qatar-was-made-by-netanyahu-not-by-us-president-2025-09-09/
"Leon: [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping? Holden: I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?"
With allies like that, who needs enemies?
Martin, you certainly missed the point, purposefully.
I see we've reached peak "one set of rules for me, another set of rules of thee" again.
No, you can't drop a bomb on a country - particularly a country that is supposed to be your ally - just because one of your enemies is there.
Remember, Mousa Abu Marzook lived in the US from 1982-1997. During that time it would have been most definitely illegal for Israel to drop a bomb on him while he was walking down the street in downtown Springfield, Va. The proper approach is to ask for his extradition, which is what Israel did.
Likewise, Tayyip Erdogan's late nemesis Fethullah Gülen lived in the US from 1999 until his death last year. Again, it would have been in no way legal for Turkey to launch a strike against him during that period. The fact that the US refused to extradite him doesn't change that.
Is it really so hard to understand that the point of the law is that it is the same for friend and foe?
We bomb first and ask questions later all the time. I think hayseeds have been squawking for years about Obama bombing arabs. Now we're bombing brown people in boats in the Caribbean. You Dutch should try it. It's very entertaining.
It's less entertaining when part of your country is within slingshot-shooting distance from the Venzuelan mainland.
"We bomb first and ask questions later all the time." Indeed we (and others) do.
I guess Hamas should have thought about the consequences of their actions before launching their barbaric antisemitic war. Maybe torturing hostages to death and continuously targeting Israeli civilians is not the best tactic right now for Hamas? Israel tends to take seriously efforts to exterminate jews.
"country that is supposed to be your ally "
Qatar is not an "ally" of Israel. Smoking crack today?
Qatar is not an ally of the State of Israel. The law, per se, the same for friend and foe. Whether the target's country of location does not than make a display of protest varies with circumstances. Think about Jamal Khashoggi. How did that affect Türkiye and KSA relations after the fact.
While I often come out as a 1st amendment hawk, I would like to say I am not an absolutist. In fact if the Democrats win the 2028 elections then I would support them imposing a countrywide universal Social Media ban.
In completely unrelated news, the Nepal government instituted a Social Media ban and hordes of GenZ rioters burned the State house and Parliament and the country's Communist Prime Minister fled the country.
"When the government moved to ban 26 social media platforms, including Facebook and YouTube, protests erupted with thousands of young people storming parliament in the capital Kathmandu on Monday. Several districts are now under a curfew.
A government minister said they lifted the ban after an emergency meeting late on Monday night to "address the demands of Gen Z". https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp98n1eg443o
Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has resigned amid Nepal's worst unrest in decades, as public anger mounts over the deaths of 19 anti-corruption protesters in clashes with police on Monday.
On Tuesday, crowds set fire to parliament in the capital Kathmandu, sending thick black smoke billowing into the sky. Government buildings and the houses of political leaders were attacked around the country."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0m4vjwrdwgo
Broader context here was that the ban was put in place to stifle dissent over government corruption. It's not just a bunch of kids that are mad because they can't brainrot on TikTok.
To keep you updated on things that have nothing to do with the US:
On Monday François Bayrou lost the confidence vote, as expected, and yesterday he formally tendered his resignation with the president. Macron appointed Sébastien Lecornu, the minister for the armed forces, as the new prime minister.
Unlike Gabriel Attal, who came originally from the social democrats, and Bayrou, who is a lifelong liberal in the European sense of the word, Lecornu was a member of the conservative party (the Republicans) before joining the government when Macron was first elected.
(Macron formed a new political movement, LREM, and attracted political talent from all sides. That was the whole point.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Lecornu
What phenomenal arrogance to believe anyone would need to rely on your news reports and facile political opinions. But thanks anyway supercilious clown.
it's not culture or education, you stupid joggers, it's your shitty genes.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/09/us-news/charlotte-train-slaughter-suspect-should-never-have-been-free-to-kill-ukrainian-refugee-his-brother-says/
Another red state criminal. But, hey, if you look at the crime blotters for South Carolina over the past month you'll see plenty of other white ladies killed by white men. Looks like there's a trend
The outrage here wasn't the guy's color, it's that he shouldn't have been walking around free in the first place with a record like that.
Charlotte is in NORTH Carolina, by the way.
For a number of posters on here, it’s the race angle.
Either directly or deciding there’s a media coverup because of it.
This is gonna get worse before it gets better.
Sure, that the media cover up stories that don't advance the narrative isn't something new. It's become something of a running joke that, if the media cover a crime and avoid mentioning the criminal's race, that tells you the criminal's race.
So it's also about race with you.
The folks that complain the left always makes it about race are the most eager to make it about race.
No, for me it's about the fact that he was a lunatic with an extensive history of violent crime, and in any sane society wouldn't have been walking around free.
For the media, his race is why it didn't get the coverage a lurid crime like this would normally get.
Yeah, that's still about race.
Poor oppressed white people.
By your logic, here's the media covering up a white murder of black people: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/man-shot-killed-3-people-194444840.html?guccounter=1
This is a stupid game to play.
In the sense that, if you complain about the Klan stringing somebody up, on account of objecting to murder, it's 'about race' because the Klan murdered people on the basis of race.
Can we agree that this dude shouldn't have, given his record, been walking around free?
Don't try to make this *not* about race, Brettt. It *has* to be about race, or Sarc doesn't have a point.
(OK. I admit he wouldn't have a point even if this was about race.)
Weird choice of analogy.
But I'm challenging your facts. There is no a media coverup. You're creating a racial narrative out of nothing.
And I provided a counterexample to boot.
Brett didn't create a racial narrative. He attempted to dispose of the racial narrative, but you won't permit that, because that's *your* narrative, not Brett's.
"This is gonna get worse before it gets better." Once in a while even S_0 is correct.
Iowa now leads the nation in farm bankruptcies. Which is understandable. When you start a trade war with soybean farmers' #1 customer (China) and dismantle soybean farmers' #2 customer (USAID), that's gonna leave a lot of beans in the field, baby!
In unrelated news; Vance and Thiel started an equity platform called Acre Trader to buy up bankrupt farms for pennies to make themselves extra wealthy
Here's the Snopes article on Vance and Acre Trader.
Not much there.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/10/08/jd-vance-acretrader/
As described it doesn't actually sound all that offensive.
As a reminder, Europe is still under attack.
“Poland’s operational command announced early this morning on X that its forces and others were on alert after its airspace was violated. A few hours later they posted that the alerted forces returned to standard readiness levels. They also thanked NATO’s Allied Air Command (AIRCOM) and the Netherlands’ air force, whose fighters responded and engaged potential threats to Allied territory. This is the first time NATO aircrafts have engaged potential threats in Allied airspace. The Netherlands and Poland were not, however, the only countries to respond. German Patriots in Poland were placed on alert, and an Italian airborne early warning aircraft and an aerial refueler from NATO’s Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft fleet was launched. NATO, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, and all of Allied Command Operations is committed to defending every kilometre of NATO territory, including our airspace.” Col. Martin L. O’Donnell, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe spokesperson
“Poland’s operational command announced early this morning on X that its forces and others were on alert after its airspace was violated. A few hours later they posted that the alerted forces returned to standard readiness levels. They also thanked NATO’s Allied Air Command (AIRCOM) and the Netherlands’ air force, whose fighters responded and engaged potential threats to Allied territory. This is the first time NATO aircrafts have engaged potential threats in Allied airspace. The Netherlands and Poland were not, however, the only countries to respond. German Patriots in Poland were placed on alert, and an Italian airborne early warning aircraft and an aerial refueler from NATO’s Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft fleet was launched. NATO, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, and all of Allied Command Operations is committed to defending every kilometre of NATO territory, including our airspace.”
Col. Martin L. O’Donnell, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe spokesperson
Trump sometimes emphasized that he was speaking literally, scoffing at critics who said he couldn’t end the war that fast. “I’ll get that done within 24 hours. Everyone says, ‘Oh, no, you can’t.’ Absolutely I can. Absolutely I can,” he said at one July 2023 rally in Iowa. He said at a Pennsylvania rally later that month: “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we all together win the presidency, we will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled. The war is going to be settled. I’ll get them both – I know Zelensky, I know Putin, it’ll be done within 24 hours, you watch. They all say, ‘That’s such a boast.’ It will be done very quickly.”
You are a broken record. Even Trump admits he was wrong about the ease of stopping the war against Ukraine. So what is your point?
Poland has now invoked art. 4 of the NATO Treaty, meaning that urgent consultations are now taking place.
Article 4 The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Consultations!
They might have invoked art. 5, but they prefer not to find out whether Trump will comply with his treaty obligations. (Or, to be more precise, they prefer it if Putin doesn't find out.)
"Or, to be more precise, they prefer it if Putin doesn't find out."
Yeah. That's why they're keeping it on the down-low with you and me and VC commenters.
You should avoid being more precise. It only emphasizes the non-substantive nature of your hyperbole.
"They might have invoked art. 5" And would have been ignored. The foreign and defense minitries are not as clueless as you are with that quip.
Yeah. A couple of drones allegedly cross into Polish airspace. Not exactly the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland. But give Ukraine credit, they probably succeeded in panicking a lot of reactionary idiots with warnings that Russia was “attacking” Poland.
Maybe Trump was right and something really is very screwed up in Chicago:
Daniel Raab shows no hesitation as he watches footage of 19-year-old Salem Doghmosh crumpling to the ground beside his brother in a street in northern Gaza. “That was my first elimination,” he says. The video, shot by a drone, lasts just a few seconds. The Palestinian teenager appears to be unarmed when he is shot in the head. Raab, a former varsity basketball player from a Chicago suburb who became an Israeli sniper, concedes he knew that. He says he shot Salem simply because he tried to retrieve the body of his beloved older brother Mohammed. “It’s hard for me to understand why he [did that] and it also doesn’t really interest me,” Raab says in a video interview posted on X. “I mean, what was so important about that corpse?”
Daniel Raab shows no hesitation as he watches footage of 19-year-old Salem Doghmosh crumpling to the ground beside his brother in a street in northern Gaza.
“That was my first elimination,” he says. The video, shot by a drone, lasts just a few seconds. The Palestinian teenager appears to be unarmed when he is shot in the head.
Raab, a former varsity basketball player from a Chicago suburb who became an Israeli sniper, concedes he knew that. He says he shot Salem simply because he tried to retrieve the body of his beloved older brother Mohammed.
“It’s hard for me to understand why he [did that] and it also doesn’t really interest me,” Raab says in a video interview posted on X. “I mean, what was so important about that corpse?”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/09/the-gaza-family-torn-apart-by-idf-snipers-from-chicago-and-munich
Wow! The civilian murder rate in Gaza City seems to be exploding under MAGA/Israeli rule. Need to send in the guard.
Sourced from a report by Palestinian "journalist" and activist Younis Tirawi. Yeah, straight from the Gallywood studios of manufactured atrocities.
And in the Guardian!
But was it in Haaretz?
Michigan District Court Judge Kristen D. Simmons handed allies of President Donald Trump a major legal win on Tuesday, saying in court that 15 Republicans accused of attempting to falsely certify Trump as the winner of the 2020 election in the battleground state will not face trial.
Simmons, who was appointed by Michigan's Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2019, said: "I believe they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress." The judge said the Republicans "seriously believed" there were issues with the 2020 presidential election.
https://www.newsweek.com/democrat-appointed-judge-gives-donald-trump-allies-major-legal-win-2127065
Sincerely held beliefs lets you do all sorts of things these days
If you're not trying to do something, you're simply not trying to do it, and you can't be convicted of trying to do it, even if what you actually are trying to do is kinda stupid, and not something you should be doing.
Look, I agree that Trump should have dropped his election challenges, at the latest, when the EC voted. I said as much at the time! At best he was irrationally in denial about having lost, at worst he was trying to overturn an election he knew he'd lost. (The same went for Gore in Florida, in 2000. He knew he'd lost on election night, otherwise he'd have requested a state-wide recount as his first option.)
And the scheme he had going would, if it had worked, overturned the legitimate outcome of the election. In a sort of vaguely legal way, by Congress exercising discretion in their conduct of what I think is a purely ministerial act, but which Congress doesn't admit to be a ministerial act.
And the certifications these 15 were just cleared for signing were going to help enable Trump in this.
But the one thing Trump's scheme wasn't reliant on was fraud. If he'd gotten Congress to vote the way he wanted, they'd have damned well known what they were doing.
The Eastman memo disagrees,
Not so far as I can tell.
It's entire purpose is to use fraud to create public uncertainty about the election so Trump could declare himself the winner!
Maybe you're reading different memos than I was?
I agree that the losing slate of electors were certifying in order to create the raw material for an improper action in Congress. Where I disagree with you is that anybody was expected to be defrauded, which is to say, expected to mistake the actual outcome of the election in those states as a result of those certifications.
Everybody was expected to know that these electors were not the ones who had actually been certified. They were just there to enable a raw exercise of power which would have been awkward to pull of otherwise.
Now, you might reasonably argue that the 15 in Michigan were the victims of fraud, if they genuinely thought Trump had won the state. But that's different from saying that they were perpetrating a fraud.
They weren't, because nobody was expected to mistake those certifications for the legitimate ones.
Brett,
There is absolutely no comparison between Gore's behavior in 2000 and Trump's in 2020.
No matter how often you trot out that moronic whataboutism, it's utter crap, as has been explained to you too many times to count. You can't accept it, because you worship Trump (while claiming to dislike him - what a joke) and refuse to believe any criticism whatever.
Except that Gore actually lost in Florida
... and it only took five years. As always win, lose or draw the process is the punishment.
No, people going to prison is the punishment. This is criminals getting away with crimes.
"This is criminals getting away with crimes." Who made you Judge Dred? After five years of costly litigation the court decided there was no crime, thus no criminals.
Isn't Calvinball great?
Are you referring to this case or the courts as a whole?
"Isn't Calvinball great?"
The judge was appointed by a governor who is a democrat.. Maybe she just did her job?
President Trump signed a memorandum on Tuesday directing his administration to revive a decades-old policy that is likely to sharply restrict advertising of prescription drugs on television.
The move reflects one of the top priorities of the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has repeatedly called for a ban on drug advertising on television. The policy change threatens to dent the revenues of pharmaceutical companies.
The memorandum also stands to hit major television networks, which earn substantial revenue from pharmaceutical advertisers trying to reach older viewers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/health/fda-drug-advertising-warning-letters.html
I'm going to put this down to random chance. Even Robert F. Kennedy Jr. must be right about *something* eventually. This is just that lucky thing.
If it helps, he also said this yesterday (?)
We had lots of guns when we were kids. Kids brought guns to school and were encouraged to do so. And nobody was walking into schools and shooting people. There are many things that could explain this. One is the dependence on psychiatric drugs.
He's ab-so-2-lutely right.
We could probably cut down on psychiatric drugs if we reinstituted recess and ran the kids, particularly boys, around for 20 to 30 minutes periodically during the day.
I don’t think restricting this kind of commercial speech is very libertarian.
You gonna lose your extra job in that Manjaro Commercial??
Francis being against psychiatric drugs is a very What’s Wrong With Kansas moment!
Manjaro's for the Type 2 Diabetes that more Blacks have than don't.
Does it make people regularly capitalize improper nouns, use weird spacing, not know basic English punctuation and such? Must be terrible, maybe the work requirements for your Medicaid will be waived so you can get back on it?
Does it work?
Well, it's not. Did Trump run on the Libertarian ticket? Is RFK a Libertarian party member?
Don’t you pretend to be? If so, this is wrong, right?
Yeah. Are you under the impression that I feel some urge to defend everything this administration does?
I'll say it again: I generally, (But not always!) approve of their ends, I find the means chosen to be terrible.
Speed talkers hardest hit.
The only part I ever heard was, "Consult your doctor if you have an erection that lasts more than four hours."
Good one, Brett.
I definitely got a chuckle.
Not very conservative, which is maybe why I think it's probably for the best. If we had a health care system where the incentives were less messed up, I can see the value of letting people know about the options for their care, but the drug commercials probably add a lot more cost than benefit in our status quo.
The world doesn't think so, since the only other country to allow such ads in New Zealand.
Well, the world generally believes in universal healthcare systems of one sort of the other as well, but that hasn't stopped the US from completely ignoring that bit of wisdom.
I realize my prose wasn't a model of clarity above, though. So to be clear: I do think the Trump administration got it right in this case.
Depends on how you define cost benefit. Commercials sell drugs and that benefits the pharmaceutical companies.
Maybe they benefit at least some of the consumers who take the drugs too? Couldn't therapeutic effects be called a "benefit"?
"Commercials sell drugs"
The ones I see say "this provides some modest benefits" but "you are probably going to die from the side effects".
The government has no interest in shutting people up about truthful speech. Decades ago, I was never down with bans on drug advertising.
Now they can advertise, but have to either not say what the drug actually does, but look at those happy people taking their grand kids for a walk! Talk to your doctor! Or they do mention it, then the last 15 seconds are one of the Chipmunks rattling off all the potential side effects.
I'm with you and all that on this.
I question how this holds up given the modern-day commercial speech doctrine.
But in 1997, the F.D.A. relaxed the rules out of concern that the restriction violated the First Amendment. Going forward, drug advertisers would be allowed to briefly summarize a product’s risks — briefly enough to fit in a 30-second TV ad.
Justice Thomas is a big supporter of such libertarian commercial speech rules.
I saw this photo this morning in the Post. Just look how happy those dapper white folks are in DC!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A%2F%2Farc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost%252Es3%252Eamazonaws%252Ecom%2Fpublic%2F7KAWBBXIUM756EGONR37LOR7LY_size-normalized%252Ejpg&w=1256&h=838
Didn't you hear? It's all super safe now! Trump even proved it by walking a full 30 feet out in the open with only a few dozen secret service agents surrounding him on all sides!
Reagan did that in '81 -- didn't end well.
I guess that proves that Washington DC is a lot safer than it was in 1981. Kudos!
In the increasingly authoritarian Canada, it turns out you can't even drive a Barbie Jeep anymore without such bureaucratic requirements as having a driving license, not being under the influence of alcohol, and staying off the main road.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/barbie-jeep-arrest-prince-george-1.7626945
(h/t Kevin Underhill, obviously)
It's a fair cop; The thing was hardly street legal. If not for the fact that he was driving it drunk, though, I might have thought letting him off with a warning would suffice.
I suspect that's probably what would have happened.
The rules for non-car vehicles are variable around North America and you need to consult a local lawyer before going crazy. In some places you can be charged with being drunk on horseback. In my state driving heavy construction equipment while drunk is not DUI because a loader is not legally a motor vehicle despite being a vehicle with a motor. (This was a real case.) A child's toy with a motor in it might fall through the cracks in some jurisdictions.
Kevin Underhill's write-up of this case cross-references some earlier blog posts of his that discuss whether canoeing under the influence is legal.
https://www.loweringthebar.net/2025/09/dui-in-a-barbie-jeep-again.html
https://www.loweringthebar.net/2023/07/canadian-legal-alert-cui.html
Zohran Mamdani, who is currently leading the race to become mayor of New York City, has launched a “Game Over Greed” petition that calls on FIFA to abandon its plan to use dynamic pricing for the 2026 World Cup, which will be co-hosted across the United States, Canada and Mexico. Eight World Cup matches will take place at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, including the final, but FIFA’s host city agreement is with both New York City and New Jersey.
Mr. Mamdani’s voice is growing in significance after a poll by the New York Times and Siena University this week revealed that 46 percent of likely voters currently planned to vote for the Democratic nominee, which places him substantially clear of second-placed Andrew Cuomo, who recorded 24 percent of support in a four-way race.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6614124/2025/09/09/zohran-mamdani-world-cup-tickets/
Not that I think FIFA particularly needs the money, but usually the result of fixed pricing is that scalpers buy all the cheap tickets so they get most of the benefit rather than fans. Outside of the FIFA context, I'd generally prefer the people putting on the event to get most of the money rather than random third parties who aren't adding any value.
Or you could take measures to prevent scalping, which is what people usually do.
“During remarks at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, Mr. Trump made a series of false statements about the level of crime in the nation’s capital, where he has ordered a federal takeover of law enforcement.
There’s no crime. They said, ‘Crime’s down 87 percent,’” Mr. Trump said Monday. “It’s more than 87 percent — virtually nothing.”
On Sunday alone, there was a homicide, six motor vehicle thefts, two assaults with a deadly weapon, four robberies and more than 30 thefts, according to police statistics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/trump-domestic-violence-crime-statistics.html
only 1 homicide? 6 Stolen Cars? You're right, Crime's not down 87 percent, more like three or four hundred percent
Math, English, logic…Things Francis doesn’t get
Reminds me of this pretty interesting book:
https://religionnews.com/2022/11/21/how-the-museum-of-the-bible-produces-a-white-evangelical-bible/
Matt Levine had an interesting item in his newsletter on Monday wondering a) whether paying someone to drop out of an election is a crime somehow, and b) if so, whether it is still a crime if you get them to bet on their opponent in a now-legal prediction market while strongly suggesting that you will solve the liquidity problems with that strategy by taking the opposite side of that bet.
Of course this pre-Trump SEC person thinks this would be "very illegal", but what does she know? Prediction markets (= betting) has magically become CFTC turf, not SEC, and in commodities trading the relevant law is ever so slightly different. Also, obviously none of this is governed by pre-Trump rules anymore anyway.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-sec-official-slams-bill-094551618.html
Man Pleads Guilty to Attempting to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction and Attempting to Destroy an Energy Facility in Nashville
According to court documents, in June 2024, Philippi communicated to a confidential human source (CHS) that he wanted to commit a mass shooting at a YMCA facility located in or around Columbia, Tennessee. In July 2024, Philippi told another CHS about the impact of attacking large interstate substations and said that attacking several substations would “shock the system,” causing other substations to malfunction. Philippi researched previous attacks on electric substations and concluded that attacking with firearms would not be sufficient. Philippi, therefore, planned to use a drone with explosives attached to it and to fly the drone into the substation. Philippi said that his plan was to fly a drone with explosives attached to it into the electric substation, that he preferred to build a drone himself to avoid law enforcement detection, and that he wanted to attach TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide, a high-energy explosive material) or C-4 explosive material to the drone.
In August 2024, Philippi told an undercover employee (UCE) that he had written what he called a “manifesto” outlining his desire to attack “high tax cities or industrial areas to let the kikes lose money,” and about his previous affiliation with Atomwaffen Division and the National Alliance.
In September 2024, Philippi conducted reconnaissance of a specific electric substation. Philippi ordered a plastic explosive composition known as C-4 and other explosives from the UCEs. Philippi purchased black powder to be used in pipe bombs, which Philippi intended to use during the attack on the substation. Philippi texted: “if you want to do the most damage as an accelerationist, attack high economic, high tax, political zones in every major metropolis.” Referring to the substation, Philippi stated, “Holy sh**. This will go up like a fu**in fourth of July firework.”
On Nov. 2, 2024, Philippi met the undercover employees at a hotel and participated in a Nordic ritual, which included reciting a Nordic prayer and discussing the Norse god Odin. Philippi told the UCEs that “this is where the New Age begins” and that it was “time to do something big” that would be remembered “in the annals of history.” Philippi and the UCEs drove to the operation site. The UCEs moved to their assigned positions as lookouts for Philippi. Law-enforcement agents arrested Philippi. When he was taken into custody, Philippi was at the rear of the vehicle, with the drone powered up, and the explosive device was armed and located next to the drone. Philippi was prepared to attach the explosives to the drone when he was arrested.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-pleads-guilty-attempting-use-weapon-mass-destruction-and-attempting-destroy-energy
These boys . . . just aren't that smart.
Why do you say that? Do they use "boys" when taking about one person?
That's your nit?!?
I was referring to, "his previous affiliation with Atomwaffen Division and the National Alliance."
Are they also all feds?
My alternative theory was that you were talking about all the undercover employees that the government needed to prod this guy along.
All conspiracies, all the time.
The FBI pulls this sort of entrapment (Yeah, I know, not legally, but that's still what it is.) operation a lot, to get blowhard idiots to step over the line and be prosecuted. The targets are never the sharpest tool in the shed. They have to be pretty stupid to not realize that they're being set up.
I'm of two minds about the utility of this. On the one hand, they probably are catching some people who'd have gotten up to no good on their own, and that's useful. But they also end up jailing a lot of blowhards who'd have never done anything but talk if left alone.
OTOH, sometimes the feds fumble the "swoop in at the last moment" part of the deal, and end up facilitating terrorism, not locking up people who might have become terrorists on their own. Then they've got to desperately backpedal and hide their involvement, and all sorts of questions arise, like, "You followed the guy who planted the pipe bombs for five hours, got clear pictures of the license plate on the car he drove off in, and you still can't find him?"
My impression is that most of these defendants are emotionally stunted, socially inept and -- as you both pointed out -- not very smart. They seem like ideal candidates for non-criminal-justice intervention to "improve outcomes" by helping people integrate better with their communities and become better socialized.
Instead, we see the government dedicate considerable resources to radicalizing them and either developing or furthering violent action. Why? Are these people who are somehow fundamentally incompatible with "restorative justice" or other schemes -- and if so, how do we distinguish those cases?
The same people who argue that because federal law enforcement says so anyone with a Chicago Bulls hat is a member of a Venezuelan terrorist gang under direct orders from Maduro and the ghost of Chavez then turn around and argue all white supremacist extremist militia type domestic terrorists are just harmless hayseeds radicalized by federal agents because you know you can’t trust federal law enforcement.
Easy safe wins for the agency, I think.
This will go up like a fu**in fourth of July firework.”
fu**in should have an apostrophe on it.
Hey, another chuckle.
Record day for the VC.
The release this week of new information from the estate of the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including a suggestive note to him apparently signed by Donald J. Trump, has not quieted the clamor on Capitol Hill for full transparency from the Justice Department about Mr. Epstein’s case.
Despite staunch opposition from the White House and Republican leaders, a bipartisan resolution directing the Justice Department to release all of its investigative files on Mr. Epstein is still on track.
Its proponents, Representatives Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, and Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, appear poised within weeks to draw enough backers to force action on the House floor, provided Democrats win special elections this month in districts where they are heavily favored.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/us/politics/epstein-house-vote.html
In an interview yesterday, Don Jr. said his father would never draw a cartoon on a birthday card. To be fair to Don Jr., he has no way of knowing what a birthday card from his father would look like
at least he knows who his father is, unlike you. seriously Hobie, in a battle of wits, you're unarmed.
Does he though? There’s not much resemblance (a phrase Francis’ father heard all the time).
Speaking of pedophiles...MAGA's two most noteworthy rockers (is anyone in the MAGA movement NOT a pedophile?);
KID ROCK [lyrics] Young ladies, young ladies I like them underaged see Some say it's statutory But I say it's mandatory
TED NUGENT [lyrics] Well I don't care if you're just 13 You look too good to be true I just know that you're probably clean There's one little thing that I gotta do
Also TED NUGENT "“I was addicted to girls. It was hopeless. It was beautiful,” he said, adding, “I got the stamp of approval of their parents. I guess they figured better Ted Nugent than some drug-infested punk in high school.”"
You left out David Wooderson from "Dazed & Confused" "That's what I love about these Highschool Girls, I get older, they stay the same age!" One of the best things about having 2 daughters was having a giggle of young girls over at the house frequently, and I'm not a dirty old man (I'm not really "old") but I am a "Man" if you get my drift.
The signature isn't centered.
In Northern Ireland they're starting to think the US is being run by nutters. From behind the paywall of the Belfast Telegraph:
Horrors of Trump detention centre: Lisburn man tells his story after arrest for 'looking like a Mexican' <A Co Antrim man lifted by US immigration police on an American street — in an incident he compared to a kidnapping — and then sent to a detention centre has described being deported back to Northern Ireland as “surreal”. Despite believing he had a legal right to stay in the US due to personal circumstances, Lee Stinton’s life was turned upside down when he was arrested by an ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement) officer. Lee (45) had been a successful Key West hairdresser with a partner, DeVaun Davis, whom he had planned to marry in August. For a month, he was kept in a cramped cell in the notorious Krome Detention Centre, which has been criticised for providing inadequate and little food, overcrowded cells and denial of medication for detainees. Speaking to the Belfast Telegraph from his parents’ home in Lisburn, he sits where he can see the door — his escape route, a safety net after what he alleges happened at Krome. “I had been making my own money, paying my taxes, I had my own apartment. It is all going well. I had my new partner, a great job,” says the stylist. “I was on my way to work one day. An ICE officer said to me: ‘You look Mexican.’ I said: ‘I am not. I am from Northern Ireland.’ “They asked me if I had my paperwork with me. I don’t know who carried that stuff around with them anyway; I would want to keep it somewhere safe. “It was like I was kidnapped off of the street. I managed to get through to my partner on the phone while they were shackling me in the streets. “They were trying to say I ran a stop sign. I was on a bike — there was no stop sign. I had stopped to let a car go by me. But they needed some form of probable cause. “The man who was arresting me looked at my phone. My screensaver is a picture of my partner and me. He said: ‘He looks Haitian. This might be a two-for-one deal today.’ “They brought me to the Krome Detention Centre in Miami.” The second Trump administration has launched an unprecedented crackdown on criminal immigrants in the US, although it has faced criticism for going beyond that remit. In 2024, an average of 37,500 people were detained by ICE per day. However, as of June 2025, this increased to 56,000, an increase of 40%. “I never even had so much as a parking ticket. I have no criminal record. I have never done anything wrong. I was doing everything the US Government asked me,” says Lee. “Then I suddenly find myself in a cell with all of these people. I was housed in this concrete cell with these really bright lights. It was meant to be for about 10 people and there were over 100 men in the cell. There was one toilet. “There were nights where everyone was lying on the ground. On the concrete, it was freezing cold. I had to sleep right by the toilet some nights because there was no where for me to sleep. “I have been vegan for a long time. They wouldn’t get me food. If they did, it was always meat. When you talked to someone about the type of dietary requirements you had, you just didn’t get [anything]. “They didn’t bother bringing me food. I lost a lot of weight. I was very malnourished. “You didn’t shower for about two weeks. I couldn’t brush my teeth or anything. “It was so hard to get anything. To even get toothpaste, things for basic human needs like a shower, everything was a struggle. “They brought you outside once a day for an hour. You’d walk around in circles to get a bit of exercise. “This man had been begging for days for his heart medication. He literally dropped dead of a heart attack in front of my eyes. They didn’t give him the medication he needed. “That was someone’s father, someone’s grandfather, and he just dropped dead. I never saw anything like that before.” While in ICE detention, Lee was given a colour-coded uniform. He was designated blue, a low-custody detainee with little to no criminal history — a common colour in the cells, he tells the Belfast Telegraph. Orange uniforms were for medium-custody — those with non-violent offences. Red is for high — those with a history of violent offences. “Nearly everyone was in blue — people who have no criminal history. There were a lot of kids there too, 18-19-year-olds,” he said. “I can barely deal with this as an adult. And the things they did to me were horrible. I asked one of the ladies about food. I had not eaten for three days. She just started screaming in my face: ‘Bye! Bye! Bye!’ “They weren’t supposed to mix the oranges and blues, but they had mixed everyone together. “You were given phone calls. My partner had to put [up] a lot of money for me to be able to call them. They listen to every phone call.” Being one of the only white detainees in Krome, Lee was called “gringo” (white person) by other detainees. While calling his lawyer, partner or family, he was often harassed. In addition to the hardships, ICE had failed to get in touch with the British Consulate, leaving Lee’s partner DeVaun to contact his family, who then got in touch with the consulate a week into his detention. “[ICE] were meant to involve the British Consulate; they didn’t do that. It was actually my parents who got the British Consulate involved,” he explains. “They would hold you in the holding cell for three or four hours. I only saw the consulate for 10 minutes. They put me back in a holding cell for hours, again with no food. “Then they brought me back to the camp with everyone else. It almost felt like, for me, if you were getting any kind of help you were punished.
Horrors of Trump detention centre: Lisburn man tells his story after arrest for 'looking like a Mexican'
<A Co Antrim man lifted by US immigration police on an American street — in an incident he compared to a kidnapping — and then sent to a detention centre has described being deported back to Northern Ireland as “surreal”.
Despite believing he had a legal right to stay in the US due to personal circumstances, Lee Stinton’s life was turned upside down when he was arrested by an ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement) officer.
Lee (45) had been a successful Key West hairdresser with a partner, DeVaun Davis, whom he had planned to marry in August.
For a month, he was kept in a cramped cell in the notorious Krome Detention Centre, which has been criticised for providing inadequate and little food, overcrowded cells and denial of medication for detainees.
Speaking to the Belfast Telegraph from his parents’ home in Lisburn, he sits where he can see the door — his escape route, a safety net after what he alleges happened at Krome.
“I had been making my own money, paying my taxes, I had my own apartment. It is all going well. I had my new partner, a great job,” says the stylist.
“I was on my way to work one day. An ICE officer said to me: ‘You look Mexican.’ I said: ‘I am not. I am from Northern Ireland.’
“They asked me if I had my paperwork with me. I don’t know who carried that stuff around with them anyway; I would want to keep it somewhere safe.
“It was like I was kidnapped off of the street. I managed to get through to my partner on the phone while they were shackling me in the streets.
“They were trying to say I ran a stop sign. I was on a bike — there was no stop sign. I had stopped to let a car go by me. But they needed some form of probable cause.
“The man who was arresting me looked at my phone. My screensaver is a picture of my partner and me. He said: ‘He looks Haitian. This might be a two-for-one deal today.’
“They brought me to the Krome Detention Centre in Miami.”
The second Trump administration has launched an unprecedented crackdown on criminal immigrants in the US, although it has faced criticism for going beyond that remit.
In 2024, an average of 37,500 people were detained by ICE per day. However, as of June 2025, this increased to 56,000, an increase of 40%.
“I never even had so much as a parking ticket. I have no criminal record. I have never done anything wrong. I was doing everything the US Government asked me,” says Lee.
“Then I suddenly find myself in a cell with all of these people. I was housed in this concrete cell with these really bright lights. It was meant to be for about 10 people and there were over 100 men in the cell. There was one toilet.
“There were nights where everyone was lying on the ground. On the concrete, it was freezing cold. I had to sleep right by the toilet some nights because there was no where for me to sleep.
“I have been vegan for a long time. They wouldn’t get me food. If they did, it was always meat. When you talked to someone about the type of dietary requirements you had, you just didn’t get [anything].
“They didn’t bother bringing me food. I lost a lot of weight. I was very malnourished.
“You didn’t shower for about two weeks. I couldn’t brush my teeth or anything.
“It was so hard to get anything. To even get toothpaste, things for basic human needs like a shower, everything was a struggle.
“They brought you outside once a day for an hour. You’d walk around in circles to get a bit of exercise.
“This man had been begging for days for his heart medication. He literally dropped dead of a heart attack in front of my eyes. They didn’t give him the medication he needed.
“That was someone’s father, someone’s grandfather, and he just dropped dead. I never saw anything like that before.”
While in ICE detention, Lee was given a colour-coded uniform. He was designated blue, a low-custody detainee with little to no criminal history — a common colour in the cells, he tells the Belfast Telegraph.
Orange uniforms were for medium-custody — those with non-violent offences. Red is for high — those with a history of violent offences.
“Nearly everyone was in blue — people who have no criminal history. There were a lot of kids there too, 18-19-year-olds,” he said.
“I can barely deal with this as an adult. And the things they did to me were horrible. I asked one of the ladies about food. I had not eaten for three days. She just started screaming in my face: ‘Bye! Bye! Bye!’
“They weren’t supposed to mix the oranges and blues, but they had mixed everyone together.
“You were given phone calls. My partner had to put [up] a lot of money for me to be able to call them. They listen to every phone call.”
Being one of the only white detainees in Krome, Lee was called “gringo” (white person) by other detainees. While calling his lawyer, partner or family, he was often harassed.
In addition to the hardships, ICE had failed to get in touch with the British Consulate, leaving Lee’s partner DeVaun to contact his family, who then got in touch with the consulate a week into his detention.
“[ICE] were meant to involve the British Consulate; they didn’t do that. It was actually my parents who got the British Consulate involved,” he explains.
“They would hold you in the holding cell for three or four hours. I only saw the consulate for 10 minutes. They put me back in a holding cell for hours, again with no food.
“Then they brought me back to the camp with everyone else. It almost felt like, for me, if you were getting any kind of help you were punished.
Of course, in Norther Ireland they have some history with both racist nutters and people being kidnapped off the street, so they're a bit sensitive on the topic.
Curious how the quoted article doesn't mention Lee's immigration status. Was he in the U.S. illegally?
The ICE weird racism seems more the thrust here.
That doesn't answer the question. Many who are here illegally claim to be law abiding.
Are you in the US illegally?
Why do you ask? I have nothing to do with this story. But, for what it's worth, no. I'm a U.S. citizen. I was born in NYC of parents who were U.S. citizens. (I also have Irish citizenship and an EU passport in addition to my US passport.)
Sure, you would say that, wouldn't you? Many people who are in the US illegally claim to be law abiding. I'm sure you're one of those stinking illegals just sitting behind his computer pretending to be legal.
You ass!
Are you in the US illegally? Why do you ask?
That is the exact issue in question. Apparently "he looked Mexican".
Quickly followed by this: “They asked me if I had my paperwork with me. I don’t know who carried that stuff around with them anyway; I would want to keep it somewhere safe.
"Papers, please." But no, not like Nazi Germany at all. Nope!
It's odd. Many in full-throated support of this, in recent years were also in full-throated support of civil and even criminal penalties of government officials who trod on rights.
Ah, the truth is coming out. He has overstayed a visa by seven years, and has no green card (it's in process). So, no, he is not here legally.
"“So yes, he had overstayed a visa seven years ago, and that’s what ICE is using to detain and possibly deport him,” Davis said. (Davis is his partner.)
https://keysweekly.com/42/popular-key-west-hairstylist-detained-by-ice-on-june-12/
Guy's kind of a reminder that stereotypes are frequently stereotypes for a reason, isn't he?
Apparently he was here legally. Sounds like he got swept up, and they seized on a technical violation, (You're supposed to have your papers on you at all times as a legal immigrant, he didn't.) to avoid admitting they'd messed up.
I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again: Trump is largely pursuing ends I approve of, but the means he uses are a mess.
I think maybe deliberately so, in the case of immigration enforcement. I think he's trying to create an atmosphere of fear among illegal immigrants to cause the ones who can't be found to self-deport.
"Apparently he was here legally."
Not so. Overstayed an old visa. No green card. Not only present illegally, but working here illegally. See above.
He sounds pretty awful. Maybe we should throw a sandwich at him?
Nah, waste of a sandwich. Just throw him out of the country.
I mean, even better would be if there was a process to help him renew his visa, get a work permit, or even issue him a green card. But, per Kristi Noem, maybe he should have self-deported first.
Ah. The account I'd read omitted that bit, it mentioned the work visa, didn't reveal that it was expired.
What does that matter?
We don't (or shouldn't) treat convicted criminals that way. So why do it to illegal immigrants?
ICE is nothing but thugs.
Gosh. That story is awful. Hopefully, lots of other illegal immigrants will read it and rush for the door to get out of the US before a similar fate befalls them. Fingers crossed!
Sure, who needs rule of law (and people picking fruits) anyway?
Oh? I missed the part where this poor victim's immigration status was discussed. Also, I highly recommend picking your own fruit. We like to go to the apple orchards in Northern Michigan to pick our apples. We pick our cherries, too, though I'm not a big fan of them. Strawberries, in season, are also fun to pick with family.
We’ll have an agricultural system based on family day trips! lol
There was a cotton system based on slavery. We took that away. People bitched about doing that, too. Some things, and some people, never change I guess.
“There was a cotton system based on slavery. We took that away.”
Swede just wants to keep the monuments to that system.
And once again, MAGAns don’t get consent. It’s like certain colors to the color blind, they’ve heard it’s a thing from others but don’t see it themselves.
And you just want to keep that system.
Again, they don’t get consent.
Illegal aliens get consent? I don't think that's true. Illegal aliens get deported. That is true. Especially now. Some people don't like that. But I don't lose sleep over it.
lol, Didn’t take long for that mask to drop.
There is a legal process for itinerant immigrant farm workers.
Martinned — Problem was, in Northern Ireland, even the nutters often had trouble keeping track which sides they were on, or which factions they reported to. What a mess.
Then Boston College (USA) decided to help keep track (quiet like). That did not work out well for Boston College.
To this day, the only way to resolve historical contradictions seems to be to let all parties persist in open disregard of what actually happened, which no one agrees on anyway.
You can't even tell if present apparent stasis is just stunned aftermath. Hard to know whether it will persist until things get going again, or if it's a page turn which will let the past recede after two succeeding generations are dead.
Goodbye, Stranger
Rick Davies, the founder of the British rock band Supertramp, who helped transform it from a faltering English progressive rock act into a prog-pop juggernaut whose 1979 album “Breakfast in America” sold more than 18 million copies, died on Saturday at his home in East Hampton, N.Y. He was 81.
The cause was complications of multiple myeloma, a form of blood cancer, which he learned he had more than a decade ago, according to his wife and manager, Sue Davies, who is his only immediate survivor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/arts/music/supertramp-rick-davies-dead.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8pVZ5hTGJQ
Media report that the US attorneys in DC and LA have been repeatedly empaneling new grand juries in cases where grand juries have returned “no true bill” in the hopes that a new grand jury will give them a different answer, over and over again until the 30-day time limit expires. The cases that have made the news are ones where multiple grand juries all refused to indict. There may a larger number of unreported cases where the first grand jury refused to indict but a subsequent one did.
My question is, can this practice be challenged? The 30 day limit is statutory and could be lengthened. Although there is no explicit double jeopardy clause at the indictment stage, ignoring “no true bill” findings and repeatedly and potentially endlessly empaneling new grand juries until the government gets one willing to give a favorable answer makes an end run around the whole purpose of a grand jury as a meaningful check on government excess based in the moral sense of the community, and turns it into a meaningless ritual, something like what has become of the Electoral College.
DC grand juries are notoriously partisan and corrupt.
Only to MAGA mythmakers.
Federal assault for a sandwich shows how much this admin is stretching charges. Add in the DoJ’s manpower apocalypse and there’s a pretty plausible alternative to corruption or even jury nullification.
"Yes, throwing a sandwich at someone can constitute assault, and has been treated as such in a recent, high-profile case where a man was charged with felony assault after throwing a sandwich at a federal officer. The charge of assault is determined by factors such as intent, the actions of the individual, and the resulting harm or potential for harm, meaning that while the act itself may seem minor, it can be legally considered an assault if it meets the legal definition. Why it's considered assault: Intentional Contact: Assault involves intentionally causing another person to fear immediate harmful contact or causing them to actually be harmed by an object. Battery: In some jurisdictions, an assault that results in the physical contact of the unwanted object (the sandwich) can also be considered battery, which is a more serious charge. Legal Consequences: The legal consequences vary depending on the severity of the act and the jurisdiction, but it can result in misdemeanor or felony charges. Factors that influence the severity: The specific circumstances of the act: The context, the intent behind the action, and the behavior leading up to the throwing of the sandwich. The person receiving the impact: If the target is an officer of the law, the potential consequences are often more severe, potentially leading to federal charges. The outcome: Whether the sandwich made physical contact or caused injury to the recipient, or if the act was caught on video."
There's video. The assailant was clearly interfering with a uniformed law enforcement officer and assaults him (physically) by throwing a sandwich at him and hitting him. That's an assault, and also potentially battery.
What's your problem with that? Why do you trivialize it? Did you watch the video?
Do you think this should be allowed? Ignored in the future? It's O.K. to scream at law enforcement officers, approach them menacingly, and throw things at them?
DC grand jury: nothing to see here. Right.
Salami is a processed meat, very bad for you they say. Pubes would have gone with attempted murder.
Another jerk minimizing, dismissing this incident. So, it's O.K. to throw things at uniformed LEO's doing their job? That's the kind of society you want?
It was a sandwich. An appropriate misdemeanor.
and should have been returned to the owner, along with a sandwich of the Knuckle variety.
The question is not whether it meets the technical elements of the formal crime. The question is whether felony charges represent a just and fair response to it.
At common law, persisting into the 19th Century, theft of any amount was a capital crime. But grand juries used to refuse to indict people on capital charges for very minor thefts with mitigating circumstances, things like stealing a sandwich to eat.
Grand Juries in pro-abolition parts of the North would refuse to indict for fugitive slave cases.
There were cases in the mid 20th century where grand juries refused to indict on felony charges for consensual sodomy.
Not every case where a grand jury refused to indict is one people today would approve of. There were all too many cases in the South of the last two centuries where all-white grand juries refused to indict for lynching.
Despite the lynching cases, this aspect of a grand jury is a feature, not a bug. The whole point of a grand jury is that local sentiment has to think that what the defendant is accused of doing was actually serious in order to charge the defendant with a serious and high-punishment crime, regardless of whether it meets the technical elements of a very broadly worded law.
No, I agree, this is (grand) jury nullification, and jury nullification is a good part of the point of having juries. Feature, not bug.
Well, it was also a feature, not bug, when some guy in the Klan couldn't get prosecuted for lynching some black guy during Jim Crow, so your view of jury nullification kind of goes along with your view of the local values it's enforcing.
The problem in DC is just that the local jury pool is wildly unrepresentative of the country at large, so you'll get a lot of nullification that looks unreasonable to people in the country at large. And even that would be a lesser issue if the federal government weren't headquartered in DC.
Could be nullification.
Could be charges stretched to their utmost and a DoJ staff not up to making the case.
You love to seize on one narrative among many, and declare it the inviolable truth.
This isn't the first time TP tried to offer an AI response as though it had independent truth value.
Tell me what about that is not true?
It doesn't go over the elements of the federal assault statute, for one thing. So it's vibes based on your bad prompting.
If you're unequipped to make a good argument, AI won't equip you.
18 U.S. Code § 111, to help you with your next hot take.
Well, the guy probably should have gotten a ticket for littering, but nothing more.
It's a matter of law and order. Order in particular. You can't have an orderly society and respect for the law and law enforcement if you allow or excuse people who stridently interfere with LEOs doing their job, charge at them, scream at them, and throw things at them. In the old days (actually, not very long ago) this dweeb would have just gotten his ass kicked. Now we follow more formal, legal processes, but are thwarted by partisan and corrupt grand juries.
What about that mob in upstate NY who surrounded the ICE agents' vehicles, slashed their tires, and forced them away. Should we just dismiss it, as it was "just some tires?" No. We need law and order, and respect for the law, and non-interference with LEOs doing their job. That mob should all be arrested and jailed and tried. Otherwise the society will (continue to) crumble.
In the old days
The mythological old days were never real. They are just a way you can try and pretend your wishes are tradition.
1950s tradwives in the suburbs and happy white kids, far as the eye can see.
Though your wishes appear to be for a police state with bonus vigilantism.
You really are an authoritarian piece of work.
You're wrong, Sarcastr0. I grew up in the Bronx in the '60's and '70's. It was a mix of Irish, Italian, German, Jewish, Puerto Rican, and, at the time, a few blacks. I worked in a liquor store during college and was held up at gunpoint twice, and also twice on the street.
Cops were tough. I've seen cops slap a guy's face for disrespecting them, and that was the end of it. No arrest, indictment, trial, etc. They maintained order.
The old days were the old days, it's not a myth.
Everything is halcyon when you're a child.
Most people grow up.
Partisan; maybe but so are you.
Corrupt?!? Prove that.
Ahhh…so if a constitutional protection doesn’t return the result you want, it must be partisan and corrupt, so it should just be gotten rid of.
Come to think of it, kind of like that notoriously partisan and corrupt Secretary of State in Georgia in the 2020 election. Everybody was saying he was partisan and corrupt, right?
If it can be challenged, defense lawyers might want to raise it in every case, at least every case where there is a plausible argument that the defendant has been overcharged, and seek discovery to determine whether the indictment came from a subsequent grand jury after the first and “true” grand jury returned a no true bill.
ReaderY, I saw a former senior Justice Department official say on television that the practice you describe is something he had never seen done or heard of during his career. He insisted it was abhorrent abuse.
A defendant in Massachusetts argued that he was not properly indicted because the prosecutor convened a second grand jury after the first refused to indict. Lawyers did battle. An appellate court decided. As a matter of state constitutional law, the prosecutor does get a second chance. There might be a limit to the number of attempts allowed.
Today I think I'll buy a Subway sandwich, put on a MAGA hat, and find a blue-haired non-binary "it" with a rainbow flag shirt on in Boston, standing close to a cop, scream in her face while menacingly approaching her, saying she's ruining society, and throw the sandwich in her face. What do you think will happen to me?
(If it's Mass and Cass she'll probably be grateful for the sandwich. Maybe I should go to Boylston St.)
On one side, you've got conservative cops. On the other side, liberal leaders and prosecutors. I don't know what will happen.
A grand jury is one of the few constitutional rights that have been deemed not fundamental and not applicable to the states. On the one hand, that may mean federal and state court outcomes could be different. On the other hand, the fact that the Supreme Court has found it non-fundamental may be an indication that they’d be OK with its being reduced to a mere ceremony.
It’s like the electoral college. If they don’t want to vote as you want, you just replace ‘em with folk who will.
Maybe they’ll also uphold pledging grand jurors to promise to indict, and prosecuting them if they vote not to. But doubtless there will still be an insistence on going through the motions of the ceremony. Just like the electoral college.
I hope there's a limit (of one, actually).
If not, the prosecutor gets the indictment 100% of the time, rather than just 99+%.
Tomorrow is the 84th anniversary of Charles Lindbergh's Des Moines speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines_speech
This sort of nastiness isn't new. It's always been part of America.
Your constant America bashing it insulting and unwelcome, and usually inaccurate.
I'd remind you that we saved your starving population towards the end of WWII. Where's your gratitude for that?
"The U.S. helped "save" the Netherlands in World War II through its significant military contributions to the liberation of the country and its crucial humanitarian efforts, particularly Operation Chowhound, which delivered vital food supplies to civilians during the Dutch famine, or Hongerwinter, in the final days of the war. American airborne and ground troops fought in key battles, including Operation Market Garden and the Battle for the Scheldt Estuary, while bombers delivered food to starving populations."
What is inaccurate about my comment?
"This sort of nastiness isn't new. It's always been part of America"
Switch Jews for blacks and you're center-mass, chief.
Only everything
Now tell me about the National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands (NSB).
They were terrible people, and after the war we hanged their leaders.
I've never quite understood why paintings were hung, and people were hanged.
In the European Basketball Championships, which are currently taking place in Riga, Latvia, Greece beat Lithuania 87-76 to make it to the semi-finals for the first time in 16 years. Their next opponent will be Turkey (!) on Friday.
https://www.ekathimerini.com/sports/1280376/greece-makes-its-first-eurobasket-semifinal-in-16-years/
Do you have a job, or is commenting here your full-time gig?`
Today I'm supposed to be reading some extremely boring documents. I admit that I'm not making as much progress as I should.
It takes a lot of output to earn a living at RMB 0.5 per comment.
With the Dutch general election scheduled for 29 October, the campaign is slowly getting started. (In the last few weeks the parties have been doing their internal decision making to decide their party lists and their manifestos.)
While we wait to find out what the main themes of the election will be, this blog post from Gordon Darroch about the rise and fall of Peter Omtzigt and his NSC party is worth reading. I think the analysis is basically right: Omtzigt had the right diagnosis, and connected with a sizable chunk of the electorate when he spoke about it, but after the election he got outmanoeuvred by the far right, and now his party is going to be wiped off the map.
https://wordsforpress.wordpress.com/2025/09/04/nsc-and-the-death-of-hope/
The English language lacks sufficient words to express my lack of interest in Dutch Politics. I mean there's "I Don't give a (Redacted)" which doesn't really cut it, but what can you expect with a nation who's main claims to fame were the Apartment Anne Frank hid out in (who ratted her out again?) and legal Marriage-a-Juan-a (which you can now get in Missouri, MISSOURI!!!!!!)
You're leaving out stroopwafel and the Van Gogh Museum, both of which are great.
Hypothetical Question, White passenger carrying concealed, shoots Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr dead before he can murder Iryna Zarutska, Imagine the nationwide riots, Sleepy Joe might even get out of his Coffin and go to the funeral, Charlotte DA charges the passenger with First Degree Murder... or even more hypothetically, a White passenger wearing a MAGA hat murders a Black female in the same manner. So yes, paraphrasing the late/great Lynyrd Skynyrd, "Derek Chauvin does not bother me, does your conscience bother you? (tell the truth!)
See Daniel Penny.
I thought of the same thing.
I wanted to pass along this little bit from an article I read yesterday. The article itself isn't that important, but it was a specific anecdote I found sadly funny. It was about the National Conservativism Conference (last week in DC).
Anyway, it was about Yoram Hazony (Israeli-born Jew) ... and he was complaining. About what? He was shocked, SHOCKED to learn that the Trumpist right had been ... infiltrated ... by anti-Semites!!!!
"I've been pretty amazed by the depth of the slander of Jews as a people that there's been online the last year and a half," said Hazony, "I didn't think it would happen on the right. I was mistaken."
I know, I know. A conservative, nationalist, nativist ... and theocratic (let's be honest) reactionary movement contains anti-Semitism???? How could it happen?????
Think of this blog- we all know that there many fine people that post here that regularly defend Trump and his movement. Some ludicrously so (*cough* Blackman). We know that Trump has made inroads with the Orthodox community! Hazony himself was early on the ... I can't use train in this context, he was early on movement, and built a lot of goodwill with Trumpists by telling the world that these right-wing nationalist were not anti-Semites!
"It makes you really popular," Hazony said. "Everybody is really grateful: I'm the guy who defended them against absolutely false, ridiculous accusations of anti-Semitism."
However, "for reasons that I don't necessarily understand," these people on the Trumpy right, "think Jews are a big problem."
WHAT?
This is a tale as old as time, unfortunately. I do appreciate that for some (like Hazony), they are beginning to actually see the problem with their eyes instead of refusing to understand what is in front of them. Because ... I will keep saying the same refrain- anti-Semitism is an evil that most be removed, root and branch, from society.
But there are two lessons that have generally been true in history. Minorities, especially the Jewish people, thrive in an open and tolerant society with liberal values. Minorities, especially the Jewish people, do not thrive in reactionary and nationalist societies based on nativist principles. And it doesn't matter how much you pander, how much you collaborate, or how useful you think you were.
As someone used to keep trying to warn us during his stump speeches- the scorpion is gonna sting you.
When in world history has a supremacist, nationalist movement NOT been antisemitic. The difference MAGA is trying is to flog a cynical, cloying prosemitism stance that no one believes except the rubes.
Somebody in Israel is waving, trying to get your attention. 😉
FBI PSA
Unsolicited Packages Containing QR Codes Used to Initiate Fraud Schemes
The FBI warns the public about a scam variation in which criminals send unsolicited packages containing a QR code1 that prompts the recipient to provide personal and financial information or unwittingly download malicious software that steals data from their phone. To encourage the victim to scan the QR code, the criminals often ship the packages without sender information to entice the victim to scan the QR code. While this scam is not as widespread as other fraud schemes, the public should be aware of this criminal activity.
This is a variation of a "brushing scam," which is used by online vendors to increase ratings of their products. In a traditional brushing scam, online vendors send merchandise to an unsolicited recipient and then use the recipient's information to post a positive review of the product. In this variation, scam actors have incorporated the use of QR codes on packages to facilitate financial fraud activities.
Tips to Protect Yourself
Criminals continue to evolve their tactics to target unsuspecting victims. Precautions should be taken prior to scanning any QR codes received through unsolicited communications or packages.
- Beware of unsolicited packages containing merchandise you did not order. - Beware of packages that do not include sender information. - Take precautions before authorizing phone permissions and access to websites and applications. - Do not scan QR codes from unknown origins.
If you believe you are the target of a brushing scam, secure your online presence by changing account profiles and request a free credit report from one or all the national credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) to identify possible fraudulent activity.
https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250731
Good info especially with the Xmas gift buying season about to ramp up.
Tori Branum: MAGA influencer and candidate for congress in Georgia, outed herself as the one who tipped off ICE about the Koreans working at the Georgia Hyundai battery plant. Effectively killing the multi-billion dollar project
https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-09-08/national/socialAffairs/US-politician-who-reported-the-LGHyundai-plant-to-ICE-faces-online-backlash/2393750
You MAGA might be interested to know that Hyundai and SK Engineering (both Korean) are responsible for designing, building, equipping and training nearly all US automotive (Ford, Chevy, Toyota etc) and battery factories. Now they cannot. But hey, you showed them slanty-eyed antisemitic terrorists!
I thought this explainer on the topic was pretty good:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOXKmJ5jxeu/
tl;dr: Yes, the Koreans probably weren't here legally. This sort of arrangement has been tolerated by previous administrations because it's just temporary in order to get factories that end up employing mostly Americans off the ground. This move will make it harder and less likely for other foreign companies to build new factories in the US.
As usual, the worst enemy of Trump's policy aspirations is the Trump administration.
How about just: Follow. The. Law. What's wrong with that concept?
We have immigration laws, and visas, and all kinds of other things related. Flaunting them or ignoring them damages the respect for law and order in the U.S. I might also point out that in the case of the Koreans, to allow them to continue would be grossly unfair to all of those who have been deported.
Bing bong so simple!
We have laws, regulations, guidance, and practices. Our society is complex; it's laws are complex.
You may be simple, but that's on you; it's not a reflection of real life for folks who are not comfy yet angry little men.
The wisdom of Il Douche.
Look at that TDS dipshit. Now he's saying laws are just too complicated for billion dollar companies to have follow.
Won't someone please think of the corporate profits?!?!!
Follow. The. Law.
But that's just too hard for billion dollar multi-national corporations!
Sincerely, Sacastr0, jb, et al.
I explained why that's meaningless. You either don't understand or don't want to understand.
A childlike response.
You didn't explain anything! You just rationalized the Korean's illegal immigration and labor by saying "it's complicated." Bullshit!
Not liking the law or finding it complicated or convoluted is no excuse for breaking the law.
They have lawyers, and can get more. Put your thinking caps on and try to figure out how to do it - legally!
Geez. Yours was the childlike response.
Except. When. It. Says. To. Spend. Money. You. Don't. Want. To.
But fine. Follow the law. Just don't be surprised when the 13,000 manufacturing jobs that were going to be created by this factory go away. Turns out FAFO applies to immigration policy as well.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Imagine being a Trumpist who is angry that people aren't following the law!
Per homie hobie : " Effectively killing the multi-billion dollar project" Not true. jb. If these workers were so important to getting the plant up and running why didn't the owners take the steps to bring them here legally?
It sounds like there's not a good visa path to support this kind of temporary skilled labor. You technically need an H-1B which are (a) very limited and hard to get and (b) intended for longer term (up to six years and H1-B holders can become eligible for green cards).
Well if the laws don't work out the best for you, just ignore them and do what you feel is best!
That's how laws are supposed to work. The individuals discern their necessity and only follow what they personally decide is in their best interest.
"It sounds like there's not a good visa path to support this kind of temporary skilled labor. You technically need an H-1B which are (a) very limited and hard to get and (b) intended for longer term (up to six years and H1-B holders can become eligible for green cards)."
No, you are incorrect. See my reply to the OP below.
First, your invocation of racist motivations is reprehensible.
There are legal ways to do this kind of thing:
special visas for foreign companies setting up new plants in the U.S.
"For foreign companies setting up new plants in the U.S., several visa categories are available for transferring key personnel, including nonimmigrant options like the E-2 and L-1, and the immigrant EB-5 visa for investors. These visas require the company and the foreign national employee to meet specific eligibility criteria.
Nonimmigrant visas
E-2 Treaty Investor visa The E-2 is a nonimmigrant visa for nationals of a country with a treaty of commerce and navigation with the U.S. who are making a substantial investment in a U.S. enterprise. Purpose: To develop and direct the operations of a U.S. business. It is a good fit for establishing new facilities, though it does not provide a direct path to a green card. Investment: The foreign company must make a "substantial" investment in the new U.S. plant. While no minimum amount is specified, the investment must be significant relative to the total cost of establishing the business. Ownership and nationality: At least 50% of the U.S. enterprise must be owned by nationals of the treaty country, and the visa applicant must also be a national of that country. Employees: Key employees, including executives, managers, or those with specialized knowledge, can also qualify for E-2 visas if they have the same nationality as the foreign owner.
L-1 Intracompany Transferee visa The L-1 visa is designed for multinational companies transferring executives, managers, or employees with specialized knowledge to a U.S. office, and is often used for establishing new branches. The foreign company must demonstrate a qualifying relationship with the new U.S. office. For new offices (operating less than one year), requirements include proof of physical space and financial viability. Employees must have worked for the foreign company for at least one year in the past three in a qualifying role. A new office L-1 is initially granted for one year with potential extensions. Immigrant visa (green card)
EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program The EB-5 program offers a path to a green card for foreign nationals who invest in a new commercial enterprise that creates jobs for U.S. workers. The required investment amounts are $800,000 in a targeted employment area or $1.05 million elsewhere, and the investment must create at least 10 full-time jobs for qualifying U.S. workers within two years. Successful applicants and their families initially receive a conditional green card."
I was surprised that they weren't using L-11s. Not sure if there's a really good reason or they were just being lazy. At a minimum, though, there's this:
https://www.colombohurdlaw.com/l1-visa-denial-rates-increase-substantially-under-the-trump-administration/
This reminds me a bit of digital piracy. If you make it really hard to do the right thing, people become more likely to do the wrong thing instead.
In the Monday open thread Riva made this defense of Trump's race-based South African refugee policy:
It is NOT a policy to favor “whites” because of the color of their skin, little nimrod. It is a policy “to consider eligibility for U.S. refugee resettlement for people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or a member of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.” If you know a way to aid people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or a member of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination without reference to the people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or members of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination, don’t keep it to yourself super genius.
It is NOT a policy to favor “whites” because of the color of their skin, little nimrod. It is a policy “to consider eligibility for U.S. refugee resettlement for people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or a member of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.”
If you know a way to aid people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or a member of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination without reference to the people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or members of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination, don’t keep it to yourself super genius.
As far as I can tell this is the exact sort of rationalization that folks make for affirmative action (i.e., you have to have a race-based preference in order to address the harm against them). Why is it okay to have racial preferences for white people but not for other races? Or, even reading the policy more broadly, why is it okay to have a race-based policy to address harms done in South Africa but not to have a race-based policy to address harms done in the US?
I don't know, it sounds more like the Freedman's Bureau, in a way.
The Freedman's bureau, in offering aid to former slaves, unavoidably was offering aid to mostly to blacks, not whites, simply because almost all the slaves were "black". (As a matter of nominal status, I mean; A lot of those 'blacks' would have looked pretty white, "one drop", remember.)
If you're going to be offering refugee status to racial minorities in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination, they ARE unavoidably, going to be white. Because blacks ARE the majority, and ARE subjecting whites to unjust racial discrimination.
But the policy isn't just "we're going to help people who were discriminated against and that's just going to mean mostly white people" it's "you explicitly have to be Afrikans". If you're a black South African who has suffered racial discrimination you're not allowed to apply.
You speak with such authority! Tell me, Brett. How many times have you been to South Africa? How many South Africans (white, black, or otherwise) are you friends with?
South Africa is facing a lot of issues. But given your strong statement (it's practically reverse Jim Crow, amirite!!!!!), you might ask yourself, "Brett, if I am so confident that it is a literal hellscape for white people in South Africa, why did so few white South Africans take advantage of this opportunity to escape? After all, I've been told they are being genocided, or something!!!!"
Well, Brett, I don't want to lie to you. It's rough. If you've been there, or know people from there- you know. But do you know what else? It's infinitely preferable to be white in South Africa, still, than black. If you don't believe me, take your lying eyes and start doing some research. Start checking out some basic economic statistics about where the wealth in South Africa is. Where it still is.
Or, you know, you can go there. With your many South African friends.
I feel like people's brains are on Trump auto-pilot sometimes.
Gosh, it just might be that I have a African American long time friend, who I talk with?
Lmfao is this real life
Let's make a list of shithole countries whose immigrants have faced racial discrimination. Riva will stamp his approval. I'll start it off:
Palestine Myanmar Mali Chad Congo
Note: Which Congo (there's two)?
Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville, capital) Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa, capital, formally Zaire)
I was in RoC in the late 90s.
Laurent Kabila was moving his army from east Zaire to the west (where Kinshasa is), and eventually captured the city and the country in late 1997.
We were in Brazzaville directly across the Congo River to assist US personnel and friendlies evacuate the city/country.
This is the Supreme Court docket for the recission / impoundment case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a269.html. Trump's August 28 "pocket recission" can remain in effect until Friday when the respondents AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition et al. file their papers.
Trump temporarily blocked from removing Federal Reserve Board Governor.
From the ruling- "The best reading of the 'for cause' provision is that the bases for removal of a member of the board of governors are limited to grounds concerning a governor's behaviour in office and whether they have been faithfully and effectively executing their statutory duties.
"'For cause' thus does not contemplate removing an individual purely for conduct that occurred before they began in office."
For the love of go... the economy, please keep this is place. I have less than 1% faith in the Supreme Court right now, but I think that this might be a bridge too far, and they can just refer back to their earlier "maybe it's precedent, maybe it isn't" rulings that said the Fed is special.
The judge completely ignored the mortgage fraud conducted while she was a Fed Governor.
But who cares about facts? Definitely not this judge or loki13. They have an economy to save! This black heroine is the only True Black Voice on the Board and that's how economies get saved!!! By strong black women! Shut-up a black woman is speaking!!
Based on a 20 year old memory:
The governor of Massachusetts wanted to remove a board member of a quasi-independent agency for cause. She couldn't just do it. She had to hold a hearing with notice and opportunity to be heard. So she did and removed him. The outcome was inevitable. The process needed to be followed.
Then the terminated board member went to court and his termination was ruled to be illegal. The governor retaliated against his statements on a matter of public concern.
By the way, I know that the loudest people care the least about (and know the least about) the actual law-like substance this blog is about*, but here's the opinion for those who are curious:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv2903-27
*Ostensibly about. Calling Blackman's posts "law-like substance" is an honorific I would be hesitant to bestow.
Sucks the analysis has nothing to do with the law, and is just what the Court will decide as a practical/policy matter about when to push back on Trump.
But that's where we are. We have become the rule of men not law judicial activist nation the right always complained we are.
I'm optimistic that there will be 2 votes from the Trump gets everything bloc that will peel off for America's economy to persist, but I'm not going to bet on it.
White people have a simple choice to make: 1. Be conquered, enslaved, raped and genocided while being called "racist" and "antisemitic". 2. Reclaim our nations and our dignity while being called "racist" and "antisemitic". It's that simple.
White people have a simple choice to make: 1. Be conquered, enslaved, raped and genocided while being called "racist" and "antisemitic". 2. Reclaim our nations and our dignity while being called "racist" and "antisemitic".
It's that simple.
h/t @StagWhyatt p.s. I added in my own bits
So powerful. So true.
Muted
Thank you for sharing with everyone how virtuous you are! Scotland Yard will surely take this into account as it reviews the rest of your public postings for illegal opinions.
A Massachusetts teachers union asked the local school committee for an $800 bonus for some of its members. The union ultimately signed a contract without the bonus. The union persuaded town voters to appropriate funds for the $800 bonus. Verdict: The union violated its duty to bargain in good faith with the school committee. No cash bonus. Not yours. You can't go behind the committee's back like that. As for the First Amendment, "labor peace in the sense of exclusive collective bargaining has been held to be a compelling government interest." The right of the union to ask for money has to yield to the rule that it use the collective bargaining process.
Andover Education Association v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, https://www.mass.gov/doc/andover-education-association-v-commonwealth-employment-relations-board-ac-t24p465/download
The nominal defendant is the state agency that ruled against the union.
'Exact date' Jesus will return to Earth as signs of Biblical doomsday prophecy 'begin'
In a YouTube video posted earlier this year - which has since been viewed half a million times - Pastor Joshua Mhlakela claimed that Jesus had recently appeared in a vision to reveal that doomsday would be upon us very soon.
"The rapture is upon us, whether you are ready or not," he explained in the interview.
"I saw Jesus sitting on his throne, and I could hear him very loud and clear saying, I am coming soon.
"He said to me on the 23rd and 24th of September 2025, 'I will come back to the Earth'."
https://www.ladbible.com/community/weird/jesus-second-coming-september-2025-015093-20250909
Can we ask Jesus to delay HIS return to after the NFL season?
I did REALLY well on my Fantasy Football for the first week (and I prayed too so Jesus helped!), so he could at least help me keep the streak going.
You can ask Him yourself.
Dear Jesus (I prefer the Mexican pronounciation),
Can you delay YOUR return to after the NFL season?
I did REALLY well on my Fantasy Football for the first week (with YOUR gracious assistance!), so hopefully YOU can help me keep the streak going.
Your humble servant,
apedad
PS.
Hat tip to LexAquilla and please send a little loving his way.
Seems like he could use some.
a.
You're welcome, brother.
FYI,
If you want a good chuckle, read up thread about all the Democrat Dipshits who are now arguing billion dollar multi-national corporations don't have to follow immigration law.
What a complete inversion since Occupy Wall Street. lmao unreal. How genius were those mind masters to do this complete reversal of Democrat attitudes in less then 2 decades of time? That sort of trickery and subversion strikes me as very Jewish.
"UPDATE: It’s now been exposed that the Court Clerk for the courthouse that released Iryna Zarutska’s murderer was a “DEI consultant” and “racial equity organizer,” and the superior judge was “DEI champion of the year.”"
DEI strikes again. This murderer had 14 priors, and should never have been walking the streets.
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1965590293614657964
I swear, we need to go back to public executions, and perhaps adopt the Guillotine. (For the murderers, of course.) (The use of the guillotine in France ended in 1981 when the death penalty was abolished, though the last execution by guillotine took place in 1977 with the beheading of Hamida Djandoubi. Maybe there are some used ones available?)
That chick isn't even a lawyer and has never practiced law and was previously funded by shadowy leftwing multinational NGOs and their dark money.
I'm not even going to bother asking if you researched this before passing along this "breaking news" and/or hot take, or even what you're talking about, because while I don't know the specifics of how the North Carolina court system works, I have a reasonable question I think anyone would ask-
How does a court clerk "release ... a murderer"? I'm open to someone educating me on the topic regarding North Carolina law, because I'm really curious.
North Carolina- where the BBQ has mustard and a court clerk can just release murderers when they feel like it! That's the state motto, right?
and the superior judge was “DEI champion of the year.”
You missed that part.
I, too, am confused by this because as written it seems to say “the courthouse” released this guy? I also fail to see the relevance of the clerk’s background— as you point out, and let me hasten to add I am also unfamiliar with this jurisdiction, a clerk’s duties are typically ministerial, at least in my neck of the woods. So I’m not quite sure what DEI has to do with it…? Publius, can you explain
“DEI consultant” and “racial equity organizer.”
Utterly irrelevant. Contentless race-baiting.
Niggerlover by another name.
I noted in my newspaper the other day that American faith in capitalism continues to fall. Maybe the Reason authors can have another round of how scary socialism is. Or maybe they could look at why people think capitalism is failing them and how we might change the dynamics of capitalism to improve its image.
Because we don't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism. When crony capitalism rules the day and the rich get endless bailouts and free money, don't be surprised when people look for an alternative.
I agree the country's leaders have gone overboard with supply side economics. Focusing on supporting the rich rather than the middleclass. A more middleclass focused capitalism would be more dynamic and would again raise people's faith in capitalism.
Part of it is because, as Poxigah146 says, we don't really have free market capitalism.
Part of it is because we didn't do to the communists what we did to the fascists after WWII.
“Overall the study found that after 10 years, 17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic health issue while 57% of the vaccinated children had at least one chronic health issue.”
https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1965520139132256554
Trust the science! No not that science, only trust the Science (tm); that the elites and narrative controllers tell you to trust and what affirms your preexisting beliefs! Science(tm)!! Vaccines are too critical to humanity, literally every single thing Big Pharma labels a vaccine, is too critical to trust science. You must only trust Science (tm)!
Do you have an actual citation for the study not just the antivax attorney talking about the study? It would be nice to see what the actual study says.
Senator Cassidy asked it the other day, mildly curious to hear your answer:
Should Donald Trump have received a Nobel Prize for operation warp speed?
Good news everyone! Gas prices will be going down. The industry grapevine has it that Trump made a deal with Saudi and a couple other gulf states to increase output. We don't know what he offered them, but it must have been sweet for them to go against their own interests. So this means local extractors will have to increase output as well. No biggie, just means layoffs in the patch. Did you notice last week Conoco, Chevron and Haliburton all reduced their workforces by 20%? MAGA baby!
Justice Sotomayor is also on a book tour, promoting a children's book about her mom. She was on Stephen Colbert last night.
One thing she referenced was to remember the good things that people you disagree with do. She grants, as a former prosecutor, that a small group of people don't really have much good in them.
The shadow, aka emergency docket, was discussed, too.
The "shadow docket," as originally discussed in William Baude's article and Steven Vladeck's book, is broader than the "emergency" docket that Sotomayor discussed.
She noted that orders like the one handed down on Monday were not the end of the line.
Baude's article spoke of “a range of orders and summary decisions that defy its normal procedural regularity,” including death penalty-related orders. Many of them are quite final.
Steven Vladeck, in a recent blog, listed some examples: "everything from denials of certiorari to summary reversals to “GVRs" (orders granting certiorari, vacating, and remanding for further proceedings), and in between."
We should be clear on terminology here.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1961&context=public_law_and_legal_theory
https://substack.com/inbox/post/172960487
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?
Shawn Regan | 9.10.2025 11:25 AM
Liz Wolfe | 9.10.2025 9:30 AM
J.D. Tuccille | 9.10.2025 7:00 AM
Charles Oliver | 9.10.2025 4:00 AM
Jacob Sullum | 9.10.2025 12:01 AM
