Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Abagail Spanberger wins in Virginia and Mikie Sherill wins in New Jersey, both by very solid margins. Zohran Mamdani wins in New York City. Proposition 50, the redistricting referendum, passes by a considerable margin in California.

All in all, a good Election Day for Democrats.

[Commenter_XY]

Yawn, blue states elected Team D candidates. I know, a good night for Team D. A year ago was traumatic.

I was much more focused on my local school board election.

As for Team R in the People's Republic of NJ, they didn't do Jack. 😉

[Malika la Maize]

lol, what happened to self-immolating high energy price Democrats going to lose here in Jersey, XY?

[Commenter_XY]

No, I said self-immolating money hungry Mikkie was going to win, but the race dynamics had changed. So woke Democrat wins in deep blue NJ, what a surprise.

[David Nieporent]

All in all, a good Election Day for Democrats.

Obviously Democrats didn't literally go undefeated tonight, but was there a single result that was in any doubt pre-election, or was of more than local interest, where the Democrats lost?

• Virginia statewide races.
• Virginia legislature
• NJ governor
• PA supreme court
• California redistricting
• NYC mayor

It does give me hope that Trump is not a harbinger of a new direction in the GOP, but a sui generis candidate whose movement peters out without him. Because we need two sane parties in the U.S.

[Sylvie1]

And how, precisely, will you reverse Democrat insanity?

[Martinned]

Don't be hysterical.

[wvattorney13]

You got a literal communist in the Dem party as mayor of NYC. A communist. And Trump is still the problem?

[Martinned]

Yes. Because only one of them is a danger to US democracy and the rule of law.

[Malika la Maize]

Not a fan of the Zohran but certainly a wacky President > a wacky mayor.

[Sarcastr0]

Literal communist?

By tomorrow he will be a literal hybrid clown of Marx and Stalin.

You are kind of a joke.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, literal, abolish private property, seize the means of production, communist. You're so quick to see fascists, but find communists invisible.

[jb]

He's a socialist, as your quote suggests. He's never described himself as a Communist and always said he's not one when asked.

Also, like many politicians, he's changed his views over the years. Seems a lot more interesting to look at his current views than an obscure quote from the past. There's plenty enough to disagree with his current policies rather than desperately trying to slap on the right's favorite pejorative.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He's never described himself as a Communist and always said he's not one when asked."

That sure settles that!

[jb]

Ah, so he's a literal secret communist I guess!

[Bob from Ohio]

Politicians always say 100% truthful things! Never say things just to get elected!

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, let's pretend that there's breathing room between a socialist who wants to abolish private property and seize the means of production, and a communist...

[loki13]

Sure. Except, of course, he doesn't want to abolish private property. And he doesn't want to seize the means of production. Of course, we could discuss the finer points of communism if you're up on Das Kapital.

But it is weird that you manage to spend so much time and energy talking about the imaginary horror of a mayor of a City, while you have spent no time noting that our current President has taken large ownership interests in several major corporations through extortion.

Weird, huh? I mean, it used to be that this was frowned upon.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Sure. Except, of course, he doesn't want to abolish private property. And he doesn't want to seize the means of production."

Except, of course, that he's said both.

[Sarcastr0]

You've had quite a few people point out that you're doing the bot thing of hearing a phrase and reacting only to it.

DMN did it in this open thread somewhere.

You reject all attempts to point out the actual facts because those facts just aren't as cool as the evil dude you've constructed to hate.

[bernard11]

You would be more convincing, Brett, if your evidence didn't consist of a couple of out-of-context quotes selected by the New York Post.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you haven't seen the in context video of him saying it, it's only because you've refused to watch it.

[bernard11]

Once again, Brett alleges bad faith at the slightest hint of disagreement. Are you really unaware of that habit you have?

Brett, I followed the link you provided as evidence, and was unimpressed. That's what I said. That you think that means I am somehow "refusing" to look at the video says a lot about you, nothing about me.

[Riva]

“We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve and no concern too small for it to care about."

That has to be some scary shit, even from the perspective of a little communist girl.

[Stephen Lathrop]

wvattorney13 — Not a literal communist. A purported communist. Purported by you, and doubtless many more to come. Mamdani looks like he knows how to defend himself.

But Mamdani also looks like an uneasy fit, if the Democratic Party stays determined to remain a Pelosi–Schumer–Newsom kind of party. By which I mean the kind of party—like Trump/MAGA—which prefers to silo problems, carefully preserving them for later use as high-grade election fodder.

A ready view of a contrasting approach—trying to solve problems, take credit or blame for trying, and then adjust accordingly—will present an awkward challenge to Ds. They remain afflicted by their perversely-cultivated inability to mobilize response.

How, indeed, could the Ds fit Mamdani's rhetorical talent into their preferred cautious–stodgy political identity, unless they can find a comparably riveting champion of cautious–stodgy politics? Which seems improbable.

Mamdani looks destined to become an abiding embarrassment to the Ds—a brightly blazing patch of political limelight, focused just outside their perimeter, casting the Ds themselves into relative shadow. Any successes Mamdani can claim will come at the D's comparative expense.

Any failures which befall Mamdani will invite Trump/MAGA charges against the Ds. Just as wvattorney13 is trying to do this morning. What wvattorney13 is doing will become tiresome—it's already tiresome—but may also deliver dirt-simple leverage to move a dirt-simple audience of folks whose taste for simplicity remains their bedrock of earnest centrism.

Mamdani's talent to turn up the volume may thus prove an unwelcome din for Democrats, if they prove unable to adjust with any means except earmuffs. Nor are the Ds likely to win any such adaptive contest, against a party of techno-bros equipped with noise canceling headphones.

On the whole, Mamdani's political challenge is likely to prove more troublesome to the Ds than to the Rs.

Thus, the fundamental problem of what to do about incipient tyranny is not getting any easier. One reasonable hope for Mamdani is that he will potentially find and demonstrably succeed with practical political means others may also take up to empower resistance to tyranny. For cultivating that capacity, I thank Mamdani, and wish him well.

[Riva]

You mean he’s not just a communist. More than a little antisemitism there too. I can’t wait to see how he globalizes the intifada. No problem too small don’t forget.

[John 4]

He’s the bogeyman!

[David Nieporent]

You got a literal communist in the Dem party as mayor of NYC. A communist. And Trump is still the problem?

He's a mayor of a single city, not POTUS. He doesn't want to violently overthrow the government to seize power. (Note that Mamdani's very point in that speech where he talked about seizing the means of production was that some of the democratic socialist policies, expressly including that one, were unpopular and that socialists have to work to convince people to favor them.) He doesn't want to round up millions of people. Yes. Trump is still the problem.

Yes, I staunchly oppose Mamdani on those points, but one has to go all the way back to… 2014 to find the last time Democrats did this; they elected Bill de Blasio, who said:

What's been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there's a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that's the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development….

Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That's a world I'd love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They'd love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.

Spoiler alert: Bill de Blasio did not in fact abolish private property, or try to. And, like every other historical mayor of NYC, he failed to use the position as a springboard to higher office.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I still hope Snake Plissken is available.

Clearly, my city will soon be destroyed, and we will need a hero. Or antihero, whatever the case might be.

Our plans to be twin cities with Pyongyang are troubling.

Plus, riders are already foreshadowing his free bus idea by simply not paying by going in the back door.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Plus, riders are already foreshadowing his free bus idea by simply not paying by going in the back door."

I hate buses. His plan to destroy the NY system is an idea I can support.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I have to say, I support his plan to fire the cops and send social workers to confront criminals for similar reasons.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He doesn't want to violently overthrow the government to seize power." "He doesn't want to round up millions of people. "

How do you know? He could hardly campaign on those issues, yet.

He's a Marxist, admirer of Debs [started his victory speech quoting him] who was "From the crown of my head to the soles of my feet I am Bolshevik, and proud of it."

Is there no democrat you won't defend? Some libertarian.

[not guilty]

I see that the Chicken Littles are out in force today.

I can hardly wait for control of the House of Representatives to change next November. Having a black Speaker will drive the MAGAts even crazier.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Apparently the idiot thinks he has the authority to arrest Netanyahu on behalf of the ICC.

It would be something if he makes himself the first target of the Hague Invasion Act.

[Josh R]

The margins of victory in VA and NJ were not expected. Dems overperformed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — As a principle for reliance, "hope," has its limitations. It can act as an effective sedative.

[Armchair]

"A good day for Democrats"

They elected the commu-socialist as mayor of NYC. And then elected the guy who said he wants to kill the children of his political opponents as AG of Virginia.

Hitler would be pleased.

[David Nieporent]

the guy who said he wants to kill the children

Still didn't say that, no matter how many times MAGA repeats it.

[not guilty]

"Hitler would be pleased."

Well, Hitler would be pleased to see how his theory of incessantly repeating the Big Lie has caught on in the U.S.

[Armchair]

Why don't you post exactly what he did say then?

Between the wanting children to die guy, and the other commu-socialist who (let us not forget) couldn't be bothered to sign a resolution memorializing the Holocaust as genocide and "wants to globalize the Intifada"...a call for violence against Jews.

Dems doing their best to be Hitler. Kill the kids, kill the Jews, a little "not quite communism, but kinda socialism...maybe National Socialism".

[David Nieporent]

Why don't you post exactly what he did say then?

Why don't you? I assume Google works on your computer.

"wants to globalize the Intifada"

Yet another thing that wasn't actually said by the person being accused of having said it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But now they have to deliver on those promises.

[Longtobefree]

No, grasshopper, they do not.

[Michael P]

... And a terrible Election Day for the country. Dems elected a trust-fund Marxist, a guy who wants to kill his political opponent and kids, a woman who at a minimum sat silent while classmates at the Naval Academy cheated, people who pledge allegiance to places like Somalia, and more.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we are already lying plans to murder and Marxist you!

[Frank Drackman]

Your Freudian Slip is showing.

[Michael P]

Your political allies are already murdering people who dare to wear pro-Trump shirts: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2025/10/police-id-39-year-old-killed-in-ne-portland-shooting.html

[Sarcastr0]

That was me. I volunteered to do it in our last Antifa Sorosmoot(tm).

I’m going to have such a busy day, since I’m to be responsible for every murder in America for the rest of today.

[M L]

Very sick and sad stuff. But they said they approved of Charlie Kirk's murder, and they meant it.

[Malika la Maize]

Pathetic x pathetic=more pathetic

[not guilty]

"Very sick and sad stuff. But they said they approved of Charlie Kirk's murder, and they meant it."

Who are the mysterious "they" who, you claim, said that, M L?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, M L.

[M L]

The millions of people on facebook, twitter and elsewhere who expressed these things and the contingent they represent, including, allegedly it seems, the killer of Derrik Rice.

[not guilty]

IOW, you don't know, but you lack the integrity to admit that you have thrown out an incendiary comment without the information to back it up.

[Nelson]

You’ll have to be more specific, since I’ve seen no one here approve of the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk. It was actually the exact opposite response.

Would you care to mention who expressed approval?

[jb]

Of course, missing from the narrative would be any of the following actual facts:

1) Any indication of the motivation for the murder whatsoever, and
2) Any evidence he was wearing a pro-Trump shirt at the time of his murder

At least you haven't jumped to concluding the murderer must be trans.

[not guilty]

How do we know that the shooter(s) were not themselves wearing Trump shirts?

[not guilty]

"Your political allies are already murdering people who dare to wear pro-Trump shirts: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2025/10/police-id-39-year-old-killed-in-ne-portland-shooting.html "

Michael P, the linked story says "Police have not announced any arrests in the shooting and said the suspect or suspects fled the scene."

How do you claim to know: (1) who the shooter(s) are, and (2) what political alliances the shooter(s) have?

Are you merely making shit up?

[Nelson]

Three guesses, and the first two don’t count.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P. How do you claim to know: (1) who the shooter(s) are, and (2) what political alliances the shooter(s) have?

Still getting your information from Otto Yourazz?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P.

[Malika la Maize]

Seems like a fair amount of Republicans and Independents joined them or stayed home. How much must Trump be a drag for people to that with candidates as awful as you say on the line?

[Malika la Maize]

To do that

[Joe_dallas]

The new faces of the Democratic party:

A wildly anti semitic marxist is mayor elect of NYC

Jay Jones who opening wants to kill republicans and their kids without a single democrat condemning him will be the new Virginia attorney general.

A vacuous Abigail Spanberger will be the next virginia governor.

Marxism, socialism and anti-semitism are now the faces of the democratic party.

[Malika la Maize]

Your comment seems to only link those three things to one mayoral candidate.

[Malika la Maize]

“without a single democrat condemning him”

Lt. Governor elect Hashmi
“I have been very clear that political violence has no place in our country, and I condemn it at every turn," the Democrat from Richmond said. "Jay must take accountability for the pain that his words have caused. We must demand better of our leaders and of each other.”

Governor elect Spanberger:
“I spoke frankly with Jay about my disgust with what he had said and texted…What I have also made clear is that as a candidate -- and as the next governor of our commonwealth, I will always condemn threatening language in our politics."

[Bob from Ohio]

Useless words, they still supported him. Today they are happy he won.

[apedad]

You support Trump murdering unknowns on the open seas so GTFO.

[Bob from Ohio]

Whataboutism!

You support drug runners so STFU

[Malika la Maize]

Pretty useful to counter the charge they didn’t condemn him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Oh Jay, honey, shh! You might cost me votes." is hardly condemning , even when you use the word.

They still supported him. That's the point,not some hollow words.

[David Nieporent]

"She didn't say it."
"Um, she did."
"Okay, but I don't think she meant it."

[bernard11]

Marxism, socialism and anti-semitism are now the faces of the democratic party.

When did Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson become Democrats?

[Moderation4ever]

Well the Republicans have already elected a convicted felon and an adjudicated sexual abuser as President, so what did you expect.

[wvattorney13]

Trump denies those things. That should end it, right?

[Nelson]

Sure. Because Trump is renowned for his honesty.

[jb]

Kind of makes you wonder what's so toxic about the Republican brand at this point if that's what voters chose, no? The outcomes in Virginia and NJ are especially notable since the voters flipped the entire executive from MAGA to Democrat in VA and this is the first time ever Democrats have been able to hold the governorship for three consecutive terms in NJ.

[M L]

The left didn't hold their nose and choose that. That is what they are.

[Malika la Maize]

The Left?

Republicans swept state wide offices there last time. Why didn’t those voters show up?

[M L]

Good question. Others have said GOP has a lot of low propensity voters under Trump, seems plausible.

[Sarcastr0]

I know that was the analysis in Vance's tweet. Not sure I agree.

Trump has a lot of low propensity voters.
It looks like the GOP might not have those voters.

[jb]

"The left"

You mean the voters of Virginia, who just four years ago choose Republicans instead. And who flipped 13 House of Delegates seats from R to D. So why do you think they made that choice? Because George Soros told them to? Or maybe, just maybe, the way MAGA is running the country is actually really unpopular and quite bad for the overall brand.

[M L]

No I mean the left. Probably high turnout and motivation on their part due to MAGA.

[jb]

I mean, it is tautologically true that every Democrat that was elected reflect the fact that more voters that prefer the Democratic candidate showed up to vote than people who preferred the Republican.

Not really sure how you get from the fact that all the Democrats won is somehow an indictment of "the left" rather than the fact that MAGA is such a crappy brand at this point that even flawed Democratic candidates can attract more voters than basically any Republican in a competitive election.

[Malika la Maize]

So MAGA caused all these leftists to vote while not voting themselves?

[Armchair]

"Kind of makes you wonder what's so toxic"

I call it the politics of hate. Like 1930s Germany, really stoke the hatred so much that you get extremists into power. That appears to be the Dem handbook

[not guilty]

"I call it the politics of hate. Like 1930s Germany, really stoke the hatred so much that you get extremists into power. That appears to be the Dem handbook"

I first thought of Poe's Law, and then I noticed the handle of the commenter.

Every accusation is a confession. It's not Democrats who win elections by pandering to hatemongers -- at least not since the end of segregation during the last century. Even George Wallace came to see the folly of that tactic.

[not guilty]

"I call it the politics of hate. Like 1930s Germany, really stoke the hatred so much that you get extremists into power. That appears to be the Dem handbook"

I first thought of Poe's Law, and then I noticed the handle of the commenter.

Every accusation is a confession. It's not Democrats who win elections by pandering to hatemongers -- at least not since the end of segregation during the last century. Even George Wallace came to see the folly of that tactic.

[bernard11]

a woman who at a minimum sat silent while classmates at the Naval Academy cheated, people who pledge allegiance to places like Somalia, and more.

A strong sense of personal honor is important in public officials. Don't you agree, Michael?

[grb]

(I sense a trap in this question)

[Frank Drackman]

Did Common-Law carry Iowa??

[Poxigah146]

The results from Virginia, New Jersey and New York City prove what I've been saying for a long time. That a conservative party cannot win given the number of non-whites who are now citizens coupled with the number of single women. Trump was a fluke caused by a really bad Democratic president, his awful VP running and the mobilization of the white population in many states.

America literally destroyed itself by opening its borders to the third world in 1965 and before then, by allowing women to vote.

If women had never been allowed to vote, America would still be 90% white. If America was still 90% white, it would be a nation like we had in the 1950s with all of the technological advancements. Clowns like Mamdani would never have a chance of winning. We did this to ourselves over 100 years ago.

[Malika la Maize]

Racism and incels, two awful tastes that are even more gross together!

[Frank Drackman]

Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia are still 90% White.

[Poxigah146]

Yes, which is why I recently bought a second home in Maine.

[Malika la Maize]

Maine’s pretty blue, wouldn’t WV be more a fit?

[Poxigah146]

Not for my purpose, which was nice weather in the summer.

[Malika la Maize]

Are you worried WV would be too hot?

[Stephen Lathrop]

WV remains disoriented. It examples the worst of this nation's political disorientation. From the decades-long era prior to the 1980's there is an abundance of archival footage of West Virginians' extraordinarily activist sense of their own political agency. They insisted on power to mold their own political destiny, they organized, they acted, and they demonstrably did so.

Loss of subsistence, with the collapse of coal mining, wiped out that sense of agency. It was a catastrophe of historic political/economic import. Ever since, West Virginia's polity has struggled not only politically, but also personally and individually, on a massive scale. Every trace of that former sense of agency disappeared. To anyone old enough to remember the course of that history as it happened, the extent of loss remains shocking.

The latest chapter of that ongoing baleful occurrence delivered WV's dignity and self-respect into the opportunistic hands of Vice President Vance, for his exploitation—and not surprisingly, rendered Vance exploitable as well. West Virginia deserves better.

More generally, the rest of the nation now teeters on the cusp of its own WV-style plunge into disorganization and despair, with its own mass exploitation looming all too conspicuously. To reflect on the political and economic fate of WV ought to focus urgent energies on the problem how to avoid that outcome nationwide. It would undoubtedly prove useful—and especially fitting—to mobilize the WV experience not just as a cautionary example, but also as an opportunity to test and perfect policies of resistance to exploitation, and other policies to effect restorations.

The Democratic Party is not even considering any such attempt. Trump/MAGA could be counted on to resist the attempt if it were proposed. That alone is enough to make a case that the nation's politics have collapsed wholesale into fecklessness. A reboot from scratch seems called for. To do it would be the most daunting political problem this nation has undertaken since the Civil War.

[Nelson]

You should have gone with Northern Michigan. I went to Maine this summer and the state is covered with “Resist” lawn signs. In Northern Michigan, they would have been Trump signs.

Similar vibe, similar population densities, similar coasts (although Michigan has fresh water and more sand). And you could be cocooned in the warm embrace of your fellow travelers.

Maine is lovely, but Michigan would probably be more your cup of tea.

[Riva]

President Donald Trump made historic gains for a Republican candidate in several minority groups. You’re just another TDS deranged troll.

[Poxigah146]

His historic gains were a flip of a few percent, enough to win the swing states. Don't be a fool.

[John 4]

I can’t imagine why people are constantly calling you stupid and fascist.

[Poxigah146]

I can't imagine why Republicans lose, given that they've been deluding themselves since the 1980s that third world immigrants are "natural conservatives."

[Malika la Maize]

But, they win a lot lately, just not last night.

[David Nieporent]

That a conservative party cannot win

Maybe we should find a conservative party so that we can conduct that experiment.

[not guilty]

"If women had never been allowed to vote, America would still be 90% white."

WTF?? What does one thing have to do with the other?

[Moderation4ever]

I found it interesting that our local elections seem to be nationalized when I read that state officials in non election states were getting calls about their local polls not being open. These elections seem to get so much attention that people thought there were elections everywhere.

[Martinned]

That's not uncommon. I remember getting emails from my local council in London going like: "Just FYI, there are no elections here tomorrow".

[Life of Brian]

state officials in non election states were getting calls about their local polls not being open

Now there's an interesting data point on a slice of people who are so itching to go pull the lever for their team, they don't even take 30 seconds to understand that they're ineligible to do so.

[Malika la Maize]

How much time does a call to a state official take?

[Jmaie]

Depends on the state. Where I live now you can actually get a live body answering the phone. In California I only ever got voicemail and never a call back.

[Life of Brian]

Dunno, but it took me well less than 30 seconds to read "There are currently no statewide elections scheduled in the Commonwealth for 2025" on the third line of the KY Board of Elections website, including Googling it.

[Malika la Maize]

Some people called instead of googling? Such philistines!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Some people called instead of googling?"

How did they find the number, dimwit?

[Zarniwoop]

It makes me really appreciate good implementations of basic gov’t functionality such as https://myvote.wi.gov

[Moderation4ever]

I agree wholeheartedly. Sites like my vote really do help me know when to vote and what to expect on the ballot.

[Martinned]

Did you see Mississippi?

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/mississippi-democrats-break-republican-senate-supermajority-flipping-3-legislative-seats/

After 13 years, Mississippi Democrats have broken the Republican Party’s supermajority in the Mississippi Senate. Voters elected Democrats to two seats previously held by Republicans, reducing the number of Republican senators in the upper chamber from 36 to 34—one fewer than necessary to constitute a supermajority.

[Riva]

Stupid is as stupid does. Assuming no cheating, because democrats never cheat.

[grb]

Riva : " ...because democrats never cheat"

And bots never make relevant or substantive comments....

[Nelson]

I found that stunning. When even Mississippi thinks the GOP has gone too far, you have to wonder who doesn’t.

[Riva]

Good thing democrats have finally addressed the gross unfairness in their state. Out of 52 congressional districts, there are currently 9 republican representatives. About time we got that as close to zero republican reps, like in the New England states. I mean, it’s not like there are any republicans in the voting population.

[Poxigah146]

Hopefully the Republicans left in California move out and leave it to rot. They can have their malignant combination of ghetto blacks, low-skill Mexicans, and white tech bros.

[Riva]

Who is this clown? Go away. Your racism exposes you as a democrat, by the way.

[grb]

If the Racist & Bot are going at each other, I need to get some popcorn.....

[Riva]

It’s your party’s racism jackass. Just another alias of one of you idiot POS trolls

[Malika la Maize]

Sure, that explains the great replacement theory stuff!

I will say this, I am impressed when a MAGA handle here actually stands up to our groypers here. Now if one of the human ones would!

[jb]

No true MAGA, right?

[Frank Drackman]

You take out San Fran Sissy-Co and Los Anuses and California's Alabama with more coastline.

[bernard11]

What an odd argument, Frank.

If you don't count Democrats, then CA is a Republican state.

And if you only count Nashville and Memphis then TN is a blue state.

[Martinned]

Huge, if true:

Zohran Mamdani says on NY1 he didn't get a congratulatory call from either Andrew Cuomo or Eric Adams last night.

He says he got a congratulatory call from Curtis Sliwa, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Sliwa's proben to be a class act.

He was pretty good at dealing with nonsense gracefully back when he did a call-in show back in my childhood - Curtis and Kuby.

Anyone remember that? It may be the nostalgia talking, but I remember it being fun!

[Krayt]

Outside NY, he was just the guy with the beret group of neighborhood watch walkers, who were supposedly controversial because they got a little close to vigilantiism.

[Malika la Maize]

I don’t know, as a kid in MD I certainly heard of him and the GA.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

And, my Republican city councilwoman lost.

[Kazinski]

I saw this quote on Instapundit:

“Republicans can’t be surprised that they aren’t winning races in places that they are also leaving in droves.”

[Bob from Ohio]

Geographic sorting by ideology/politics is a thing.

[John F. Carr]

Relevant to the situation in NYC, BBC discusses what happens when ambitious reformers take over local governments and don't have as much authority as they want.

"What a UK government led by Reform would really look like" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2kyjrg77eo

[Joe_dallas]

Voters in blues states fired up with trump hate elect leftwing democrats. Are we surprised?

[Kazinski]

Articles of impeachment have been revived against Judge Boasberg over the Arctic Frost subpoenas and gag order:

"WASHINGTON – This morning, Congressman Byron Donalds (R-FL), Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) led a press conference to discuss the "Arctic Frost" witch hunt investigation conducted by President Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and to demand the impeachment of D.C. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg."
 
Now I don't think.Boasberg will get convicted if impeached, and I am not even sure Boasberg did anything wrong.

But the following statute forbids Judges from issuing gag orders on Subpoenas issued on communications of US Senators and their offices:

2 U.S. Code § 6628 - Treatment of electronic services provided by Sergeant at Arms

(5)

the term “remote computing service” has the meaning given that term in section 2711 of title 18;

...the term “Senate data”, with respect to a Senate office, means any electronic mail oother electronic or data communication, other data (including metadata), or other information of the Senate office; and the term “Senate office” means a committee or office of the Senate, including a Senator, an officer of the Senate, or an employee of, intern at, or other agent of a committee or office of the Senate.

(1)Retaining possession

(A)In general

A Senate office shall be deemed to retain possession of any Senate data of the Senate office, without regard to the use by the Senate office of any individual or entity described in paragraph (2) for the purposes of any function or service described in paragraph (2).....

(c)Notification

Notwithstanding any other provision of law or rule of civil or criminal procedure, the Office of the SAA, any officer, employee, or agent of the Office of the SAA, and any provider for a Senate office that is providing services to or used by a Senate office shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure of Senate data of the Senate office that is transmitted, processed, or stored (whether temporarily or otherwise) through the use of an electronic system established, maintained, or operated, or the use of electronic services provided, in whole or in part by the Office of the SAA, the officer, employee, or agent of the Office of the SAA, or the provider for a Senate office.

(d)Motions to quash or modify

Upon a motion made promptly by a Senate office or provider for a Senate office, a court of competent jurisdiction shall quash or modify any legal process directed to the provider for a Senate office if compliance with the legal process would require the disclosure of Senate data of the Senate office."

Reading the statute one might think it doesn't allow gag orders for subpoenas requiring the production of communications of US Senators, which is why we need Boasberg to explain why Federal District Judges don't have to follow the law.

Other than keeping the subpoenas secret so the Senators never find out about them of course, but that is no longer operative.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"But the following statute forbids Judges from issuing gag orders on Subpoenas issued on communications of US Senators and their offices"

Assuming you are right, i.e. the statute does forbid a judge from issuing such a gag order -- and the judge did issue such a gag order anyway -- isn't that inherently "doing something wrong?"

I can see him being both impeached and convicted when the GOP tells the Dems five words: "You want Trump doing this?"

[Kazinski]

Its worth noting that when both Verizon and ATT were issued Arctic Frost Subpoenas that while Verizon complied, ATT told the DOJ to pond sand.

Rick Scott is asking Verizon about it:

"Furthermore, Section 6628(d) states that if either a “Senate office or provider” files a motion to quash a subpoena that “require[s] the disclosure of Senate data,” the court “shall quash” the subpoena or “modify” it so as not to disclose the data. Understanding that the gag order and subpoena were unlawful, your competitor, AT&T, appears to have rightfully refused to comply. Verizon, however, appears to have rolled over and complied with the unlawful subpoena and cover-up. Verizon claims that, because “a court ordered Verizon not to tell anyone,” it “had no choice but to comply with the court order.” Yet if AT&T refused to comply and Section 6628 clearly states otherwise, then presumably Verizon did have a choice. It just failed to make the right one."

https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/2025/11/sen-rick-scott-demands-answers-from-verizon-on-release-of-cell-phone-data-in-arctic-frost-witch-hunt

But no one is disputing that ATT and Verizon have to follow the law.

However I have never heard anyone assert that Federal District Judges have any obligation to follow the law. So I am sure Boasberg is in the clear.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, Fed judges must follow the law. Regardless, I agree. Boasberg is in the clear (for now).

I am much more interested in his BS while heading up the FISA court. He was nothing more than a rubber stamp for the government.

[grb]

Kazinski : "So I am sure Boasberg is in the clear"

Whether that's true or not is entirely irrelevant. The important thing, Kazinski, is you've clearly found the issue you need for next year's midterms. Those silly Dems think healthcare, inflation, or ICE thugs beating people in the street are election winners. With your election-stealing congressional martyrs, you've clearly got all that stuff trumped (intended).

[Kazinski]

You don't really think that I think this is going to be an issue the voters care about do you?

I think we all know 90% of federal elections are decided by pocketbook issues.

It also doesn't escape me that the Senate hypocritically gave themselves a carve out on the subpoena notification gag order which does not apply to you and me.

I see the issue in this case as a law blog special.

[David Nieporent]

I can see him being both impeached and convicted when the GOP tells the Dems five words: "You want Trump doing this?"

There is as much chance of Boasberg being impeached or convicted as there is of you ever getting a single thing right about any past or present fact.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wouldn't that be, "You want Trump doing this, too?" To avoid losing sight of the fact that Democrats already did it.

[Martinned]

The only example of someone trying to impeach a Federal judge before the current campaign against judges who displease the Great Leader is some grandstanding by AOC last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges#Clarence_Thomas_and_Samuel_Alito_%E2%80%93_United_States_Supreme_Court

The last attempted impeachment before that was a District Judge in Alabama who beat his wife, and who resigned rather than being impeached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges#Mark_Fuller_%E2%80%93_Middle_District_of_Alabama

So what exactly are you talking about?

[grb]

David Nieporent : "(as) you ever getting a single thing right about any past or present fact"

Bless his heart, Kazinski is a forum treasure. He swallowed every single Comer accusation however jokey or absurd, and gave us long posts on each that proved worthless. He once spent weeks trying to resurrect the Shokin nonsense, despite every single damn fact being against it. More recently, Kazinski provided regular long posts "proving" the economy isn't going where everyone sees it is.

Up is down never had a more vigorous proponent than Kazinski.

(he's real big on black is white too)

[John 4]

He also had a daily post on economic conditions that was pretty hilarious. I wonder why that stopped.

[Kazinski]

It was never daily, it was when economic stats dropped, here is the one I did a week ago when CPI was released:

CPI came out late this month and everyone who isn't actively rooting for higher inflation was pleasantly surprised.

I also did one on the final Treasury Monthly Statement for the fiscal year showing Trump kept the deficit slightly lower than the previous year nominally, an significantly lower as percentage of GDP.

Keep up.

[Malika la Maize]

It was when economic stats dropped that he thought he could spin for the government (he admitted it once saying he wanted to see it succeed).

[Kazinski]

That's definitely why I started posting on the releases, bunch of idiots kept claiming Trump was tanking the economy and exploding deficits when the data showed no such thing.

Which of course is why I get pushback from it, you just want spin, not the actual numbers.

[Malika la Maize]

His “Marxist killed those MN legislators because they voted against illegal alien benefits” was a classic too.

[David Nieporent]

Bless his heart, Kazinski is a forum treasure.

You can mock Kaz all you want, but to be clear, my comment was responding to, and referring to, Dr. Ed.

[David Nieporent]

As far as I can tell, it was the senators' personal phones, not the senate phones, whose records were obtained. If so, the statute doesn’t apply. If the latter, it looks like the order shouldn't have been issued.

[Kazinski]

Rick Scott seems to think the Statute applies, more from his letter:

"I am a Verizon customer, and I recently discovered that my Verizon data was targeted by the subpoena and unlawful gag order. Rather than notifying my office that my Senate data was being compromised, as provided for in Section 6628(c), Verizon concealed this information from me. Verizon also failed to file a motion to quash as provided for in Section 6628(d). I am deeply disappointed in Verizon’s failure to notify me or my office that my Senate data was exposed, as well as its failure to make any effort to protect my data."

And if the statute didn't apply, how did ATT get away with noncompliance?

Boasberg has a reputation of being a hardass when his orders are flouted.

[David Nieporent]

"Rick Scott seems to think" should've been a red flag.

[Kazinski]

Well you seem to be just guessing.

[David Nieporent]

I am, yes, because despite all the GOP talking points about the horrible revelations of terrible abuses, there are no facts out there to show what they claim. With respect to the 8 senators (and one House member), all we know is that some phone call logs over a 4-day period were subpoenaed. We haven't seen the subpoenas.

Note that what we do know is that, despite the GOP lying about being victimized by weaponized lawfare, nothing was done to any of these senators. Fewer of them — i.e., zero — were prosecuted than Trump has done to those he perceives as his political enemies, let alone all the other ones Trump has called for adding to the list. So, there was an investigation, and then — unlike with Trump — when the prosecutors decided not to proceed, they dropped the matter.

[Life of Brian]

You seem to be pivoting from "the statute doesn’t apply" to: "So what? Nothing bad happened."

We know the subpoenas were issued, we know the statute applies, and we know AT&T respected it while Verizon didn't. I know you're not seriously arguing none of that matters just because the people who improperly pawed through the senators' phone records were disappointed with what they found.

[David Nieporent]

You seem to be pivoting from "the statute doesn’t apply" to: "So what? Nothing bad happened."

I am not pivoting. I am making two points. Both can be true.

We do not know the statute applies, because we don't know what actually happened.

[Life of Brian]

What factual clarification do you think you need in order to decide whether the statute applies?

[David Nieporent]

Whether it was the senators' personal phones or work phones.

[Life of Brian]

How do you read the statute to be limited to work phones? As wvattorney13 pointed out this morning, "Senate office" explicitly covers individual senators, and "provider for a Senate office" explicitly covers services "directly commissioned or used by a Senate office." Do you see something else that would rule out senators' personal phones?

[David Nieporent]

As Voize of Reazon pointed out in response, if the language "Senate office" were interpreted to include Senators when acting in their private capacity unrelated to the actual office they hold in the senate, then it would also be read to insulate random people like the guy who cuts a senator's lawn. I do not think that is a reasonable interpretation. (While titles of statutes do not modify the text of those statutes, the fact that this statute is called "Treatment of electronic services provided by Sergeant at Arms" certainly provides some guidance as to how we should interpret the not-very-well-written language of the statute. A senator's personal phone is not "electronic services provided by Sergeant at Arms.")
​
​
Aside from being an incredibly awkward way of describing who is covered, it has a massive loophole built in, even if interpreted as maximally as you seem to want. If (e.g.) Verizon is served with a subpoena for a senator's official phone records, Verizon cannot be ordered not to disclose that subpoena to that senator, but it is not required to do so. And if it chooses not to, the senator has no rights or remedy of any sort under this statute.

[Life of Brian]

As Voize of Reazon pointed out in response, if the language "Senate office" were interpreted to include Senators when acting in their private capacity unrelated to the actual office they hold in the senate, then it would also be read to insulate random people like the guy who cuts a senator's lawn. I do not think that is a reasonable interpretation.

It's also not reasonable that the lawnmowing guy would have a Senate work phone, so that could be just a glimmer of a clue that you folks are stretching it trying to encompass a silly corner case to try to support the argument that it doesn't cover the explicitly-recited case of "a Senator."

A senator's personal phone is not "electronic services provided by Sergeant at Arms."

As I just said to NG below, the statute distinguishes throughout between a provider that is an "agent of the Office of the SAA" and a "provider for a Senate office." Clearly the drafters contemplated providers that aren't SAA agents.

[David Nieporent]

It's also not reasonable that the lawnmowing guy would have a Senate work phone, so that could be just a glimmer of a clue that you folks are stretching it trying to encompass a silly corner case to try to support the argument that it doesn't cover the explicitly-recited case of "a Senator."

Um, the entire point of this is your contention is that the statute isn't limited to Senate work phones. If you're now conceding that it is, then which phone the subpoena was asking about is entirely relevant.

[Life of Brian]

Um, the entire point of this is your contention is that the statute isn't limited to Senate work phones.

And it's your contention that it is so limited. But your "lawnmower man" fanciful hypo doesn't make sense under your reading. Try reading my post again, more slowly this time.

Speaking of conceding, I note you quietly dropped your SAA-only argument.

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of conceding, I note you quietly dropped your SAA-only argument.

Um, I never made that argument. Read more goodly.

[David Nieporent]

And it's your contention that it is so limited. But your "lawnmower man" fanciful hypo doesn't make sense under your reading. Try reading my post again, more slowly this time.

Um, no shit. My lawnmower man hypo is based on your reading. If it's limited to official capacity, as I contend, then the statute would apply neither to a senator's personal phone nor to a senator's personal employee's personal phone.

[wvattorney13]

"(7)the term “Senate office” means a committee or office of the Senate, including a Senator, an officer of the Senate, or an employee of, intern at, or other agent of a committee or office of the Senate."

I don't know where we are getting that the lawnmower kid is covered. It covers a Senator, which I would interpret as the whole of the Senator, including his personal and work phones. "Employee of" only modifies "committee or office of the Senate."

So yes, it would apply to senate staffers, receptionists and others who work for the senate office but not people who work for the Senator in a personal capacity like a cook, maid, or lawn boy.

[Voize of Reazon]

"Employee of" only modifies "committee or office of the Senate."

But earlier in the same sentence a "committee or office of the Senate" includes "a Senator".

In fact the definition is also fully recursive: it's a "committee or office of the Senate, including [...] an employee of [...] a committee or office of the Senate", so if you are looking for even more textual absurdity this is a great place to find it. It's employees all the way down instead of turtles.

Now, we should be able to agree that it couldn't have been the legislative intent to cast such a wide net. But if official vs. personal is the implied limiting principle, wouldn't that apply to phones too?

[Kazinski]

On to the hearings to get the facts.

At least we know of one repercussion, anyone still in the FBI and DOJ who participated in this fishing expedition will be terminated, if they haven't been already.

There might have been a window where they could have come forward with this and saved their jobs, but that window closed a while ago.

[David Nieporent]

Again, opposite of a fishing expedition.

[Kazinski]

So what was the predicate?

[David Nieporent]

We don't know, which is why it is impossible to say that there was any wrongdoing. (I reiterate, though, that the only "predicate" required for obtaining phone records is relevance.) But what we do know is that there were roughly 250 GOP members of Congress in January 2021, and they obtained records for only nine of them. That's targeted.

[Voize of Reazon]

<moved>

[Dr. Ed 2]

You honestly think Verizon won't be sued?

[not guilty]

Rick Scott is a slimy fraudster. Many of us in Nashville remember how, following the merger of Scott's Columbia Hospital Corporation with Hospital Corporation of America, Scott ran the company into the ground, defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The U.S. Department of Justice won 14 felony convictions against the company, which was fined $1.7 billion in what was at the time the largest healthcare fraud settlement in U.S. history.

Scott was run out of town on a rail, and Dr. Thomas Frist, Jr. had to come out of retirement to right the ship.

[wvattorney13]

"(7)the term “Senate office” means a committee or office of the Senate, including a Senator, an officer of the Senate, or an employee of, intern at, or other agent of a committee or office of the Senate."

It looks like the law is comprehensive.

[not guilty]

The sine qua non of the statute's applicability is the provision of electronic services by the Senate Sergeant at Arms.

Would the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate be responsible for senators' personal phones? If not, the telephone service providers would not be “agent[s] of the Office of the SAA” per 2 U.S. Code § 6628(a)(1):

(1) the term “agent of the Office of the SAA” includes a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service commissioned or used through the Office of the SAA by a Senate office to provide such services to the Senate office [emphasis added]

Such agency relationship would not exist between a service provider not commissioned or used through the Office of the SAA and an individual senator, and § 6628(c) would be inapplicable, per the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- a statute's expression of one or more things means that other things of the same class are excluded.

[Life of Brian]

The sine qua non of the statute's applicability is the provision of electronic services by the Senate Sergeant at Arms.

The only suggestion of that sort of limitation is in the statute's title. When it came to your dearly beloved 18 U.S.C. § 1512, you were quite content to explain to us that the body of the statute was broader than the title.

Looks like the same is true here. "Provider for a Senate office” is separately defined, and is used throughout the statute disjunctively with "agent of the Office of the SAA," including in 6628(c).

[not guilty]

A statute must be read as a whole in light of its purpose, such that every word is given effect. The title can be considered as evidence of that purpose. Per § 6628(a)(4):

(4) the term “provider for a Senate office” means a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service directly commissioned or used by a Senate office to provide such services [emphasis added.]

Under § 6628(a)(7):

(7) the term “Senate office” means a committee or office of the Senate, including a Senator, an officer of the Senate, or an employee of, intern at, or other agent of a committee or office of the Senate.

The context there is the personnel related to carrying out the duties of a Senate office. Senators routinely distinguish between official duties and actions taken in their personal capacities. That is why, for example, they leave the Capitol grounds to engage in fundraising operations. Do you surmise that they do not take their personal phones, personal digital assistants, etc. when they make that jaunt away from the Capitol building?

[wvattorney13]

If you substitute the relevant words, it becomes clear:

"means a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service directly commissioned or used by [a Senator] to provide such services"

Did the Senator commission the use of a provider for his personal cell phone? Yes? Then the statute applies.

[Voize of Reazon]

I don't know, the statute doesn't seem to be limited to Senators in their official capacity. On its face it also applies to employees of Senators, again not limited to their official capacity, so could even be read to include the guy who cuts the Senator's lawn.

But I don't think the effect is that the order may not issue, rather that the provider is free to ignore it (at least to the extent it concerns protected data). Contrary to Rick Scott's view, there is no created duty to notify.

[Life of Brian]

But Verizon isn't claiming they just chose not to notify -- they're claiming they couldn't have. Here's the full quote from the National Review article Scott's letter cites:

“In 2023 Verizon was ordered to turn over call records for certain members of Congress to the Department of Justice. The Special Counsel and DOJ at the time decided who to target. A court ordered Verizon not to tell anyone about that. We had no choice but to comply with the court order. So we did,” Verizon spokesman Rich Young said in a statement to NR.

[Voize of Reazon]

If they were wrong, and did have the option to notify, they still didn't have the duty to notify.
At least, not arising from that statute.

[Life of Brian]

I'm not sure why you're so focused on a duty. Scott's letter doesn't to my eye claim they had a duty, but instead says "Verizon did have a choice" and asks them to justify that choice. In contrast, AT&T pushed back on Smith for the legal basis for the subpoena rather than just rolling over, and he dropped it.

[Voize of Reazon]

He complains that they failed to ignore something they were entitled to ignore.

Verizon should immediately correct that behavior by ignoring Scott's letter. After all, he is not entitled to answers to his questions.

I particularly appreciate the shamelessness in the closing of his letter, where he writes

I ask these questions not only for myself, but also on behalf of the millions of Americans who believe their data is safe with Verizon.

Millions of Americans for whom the gag order would be effective because they aren't protected by special Senator-only legislation, that is. Politicians should live by the same rules they make everybody else live by.

[Life of Brian]

He complains that they failed to ignore something they were entitled to ignore.

The thing they were "entitled to ignore"--as demonstrated by AT&T--was the illegal subpoena itself. If Jack Smith had actual legal authority for those subpoenas, he wouldn't have just gone away when AT&T asked him to provide it.

Millions of Americans for whom the gag order would be effective because they aren't protected by special Senator-only legislation, that is.

I'm not sure why you think it's an unreasonable question why Verizon would opt to just fork over subscriber information in response to an illegal subpoena. That's a concern a whole lot of people do and should share, having nothing to do with the Senate-specific rules.

[David Nieporent]

The thing they were "entitled to ignore"--as demonstrated by AT&T--was the illegal subpoena itself. If Jack Smith had actual legal authority for those subpoenas, he wouldn't have just gone away when AT&T asked him to provide it.

How do you know he did? Again, all of this is based on the single fact that we know some phone records were subpoenaed.

[Life of Brian]

A letter from AT&T here saying exactly that. Second bullet.

[David Nieporent]

The letter from AT&T says that the company did not receive subpoenas at all for the 9 members of Congress who have been identified. It says that at a different point in time it received a subpoena for the record of two different members — who may or may not have been senators at all!

It does say that AT&T raised questions about the subpoena and that it wasn't pursued, so I'll give you that, but we don't have any idea why.

[Life of Brian]

You did a really nice job rebutting stuff I didn't say, and "we don't know why" is one of those true-but-irrelevant things.

The bottom line is that the letter says "when AT&T raised questions with the Special Counsel Smith’s office concerning the legal basis for seeking records of members of Congress, the Special Counsel did not pursue the subpoena further."

That's all it took, and Verizon didn't even try.

[wvattorney13]

That is how I read it. Generally, they can issue these orders and the provider may not tell the target. In the case of the Senate, the provider MAY tell the Senate or a senator. If they didn't, which it seems that they didn't here, then that doesn't make much of a difference.

[not guilty]

"As far as I can tell, it was the senators' personal phones, not the senate phones, whose records were obtained. If so, the statute doesn’t apply. If the latter, it looks like the order shouldn't have been issued."

That is a good point. That lack of information doesn't keep the MAGAts from yapping and yammering.

[SRG2]

Wouldn't impeachment require the House to re-open, and hence compel Johnson to swear in Grijalva? Or would Johnson claim some invented rule to the contrary?

[wvattorney13]

If the House isn't in session anyways, what harm is it causing that the new member is not sworn in until they are in session? Is she losing days of service points or something I am missing?

[Martinned]

You know full well why Johnson is doing this song and dance.

[Life of Brian]

The only rationale I've heard her articulate has the word "Epstein" in it. If she's claiming actual harm, I've missed it.

[Malika la Maize]

# 16

https://mcusercontent.com/cc1fad182b6d6f8b1e352e206/files/2373e6ca-e621-5ed7-d8bb-4dd1042a55ce/2025_10_21_Complaint_for_Declaratory_Relief_State_et_al._v._US_House_et_al.pdf

[Life of Brian]

You may have noticed they couldn't help themselves and raised Epstein first, in Paragraph 15. This clearly isn't their primary issue.

And as even "stopped-clock" Lathrop recognizes below, generic gripes like that just collapse into the House not being in session. (And come on -- she's being prevented from giving information to her constituents? Really? As I linked above, she doesn't seem to have a shred of difficulty speaking into the plethora of microphones being shoved in front of her in her 15 minutes of fame.)

[Malika la Maize]

Now he goes from “only” to “ok, not only but look they listed it first!”

[Life of Brian]

I said "only rationale I've heard." You showed me another, so I addressed it. Do you even try to read what I write, or do you read and then deliberately choose to misconstrue?

[not guilty]

"The only rationale I've heard her articulate has the word "Epstein" in it. If she's claiming actual harm, I've missed it."

Is that an admission that you haven't read the complaint in Ms. Grijalva's and the State of Arizona's lawsuit, Life of Birdbrain?

Why am I unsurprised?

[Life of Brian]

Lots of stuff to read in the world. Like the four posts immediately above yours discussing that exact complaint, just for example.

[not guilty]

"Like the four posts immediately above yours discussing that exact complaint, just for example."

All of which are more recent than your drivel about the word Epstein.

[Life of Brian]

And none of which you bothered to read before parachuting into the discussion demanding an "admission" for something already clear in the thread.

Since I apparently have to spell it out, not reading the immediate context of the comment you're jumping on seems a rather poor choice when castigating someone for not having read something else out on the internet somewhere.

[not guilty]

I did read those comments, Birdbrain. I just wanted to clarify whether you were acting out of ignorance or deliberately lying when you made your Epstein comment. If you had read the complaint and nevertheless made your assertion, it would be the latter, so I was actually being charitable by giving you the opportunity to acknowledge that you were merely ignorant.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The harm being done is that the House is not in session. The, "anyways," is less than forthright.

[David Nieporent]

The premise is false: the House is not in recess. Mike Johnson has been conducting pro forma sessions every few days. (And several months ago he swore in two GOP special election winners during one of those pro forma sessions.)

Also, there are things members of Congress do besides vote on the floor, including committee hearings and constituent services, which Grijalva can't participate in.

[not guilty]

"The premise is false: the House is not in recess. Mike Johnson has been conducting pro forma sessions every few days. (And several months ago he swore in two GOP special election winners during one of those pro forma sessions.)"

I'm not sure whether Speech or Debate immunity would apply in this context, but Ms. Grijalva may have a "Class of One" claim under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Patriots are 7-2.

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure I'm buying the Patriots yet. They do have one marquee win against the Bills, but the only other win against a team with a winning record is the Panthers. And they have an ugly opening day loss against the Raiders.

Sunday they play Tampa Bay, that could do a lot to convince me they are for real.

[Malika la Maize]

The worst loss to hold against a team is an early one. Vrabel’s done good.

[Frank Drackman]

and only won by a missed Extra Point over my Fal-Coons (doesn't matter we'd have lost anyway)

[wvattorney13]

The game they played against the Steelers was a beat down. They won in every single phase of the game except points.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Patriots have been greatly advantaged by an historically weak schedule of opponents. That does not make the advantage illusory. The Patriots way to the number one seed in the AFC, and a first-round bye in the playoffs, has become inviting.

In the AFC, only the Bills and the Colts look to have capacity to match or exceed the likely won/lost record the Patriots can now achieve. The Patriots appear purpose-built to win a match-up against the Colts.

The Bills are another matter, but the Patriots already beat the Bills at home. Their next meeting will be at Gillette. If the Patriots can win that one, they appear a near-lock to win the first seed in the playoffs. If the Patriots lose to the Bills, they still have a fair chance that the Bills will lose more games than the Patriots will, and open a back door to the number one seed for the Patriots.

For those who have not been following, second-year Patriots quarterback Drake Maye appears to be already the real deal, but with conspicuous room to improve judgment on when to get rid of the ball to avoid a sack. That is not a talent-limited kind of challenge. One sentence of advice, if well-heeded, could make Maye better still.

And Maye has already shown consistent touch on the long pass, better than what Tom Brady could ever deliver as consistently as Maye already has. (That is not a claim that Maye has proven comparable to Brady, of course. Brady's talents were manifold, with long-pass accuracy less than the others.)

That does mean that today's Patriots have to be taken seriously in any game, against any opponent. Nobody ought to be ranked a strong favorite over these Patriots. The odds makers still seem not to have expected that.

Last I looked, odds on the Patriots to win the Super Bowl would pay off at 27-to-1. I think whatever team wins the AFC will most likely win the Super Bowl. If they get the number one AFC seed, the Patriots might afterward have to win only one genuinely competitive game to get to the Super Bowl. Maybe that puts accurate odds against a Super Bowl win about the same as the Patriot's ability to win consecutive games against two strong opponents, reduced by the probability that they lose the number one seed, but adjusted back by a probability that they win out in the AFC anyway.

What's your guess? I don't think the reality is nearly as unfavorable as the published odds. I think those odds still remain too inflected by pre-season expectations which omitted Maye's dramatic maturation.

Except for the injury wild card, that is. It applies to all the teams, but maybe not equally to each. Some players, especially quarterbacks, may guard themselves against injuries less capably than others. Some teams may better guard their quarterback than others.

I count Mahomes of the Chiefs, and Allen of the Bills, as proven low-injury-risk quarterbacks. The Patriots do not guard Maye as capably, and Maye's value includes talent for effective runs on broken plays. Maye is probably more likely to suffer injury than either of those potential rivals.

Pay your money, and take your chances. None of the contenders is odds-on. Whatever bet you choose on any specific team, the field at large is likely to beat you. But if you bet now on these Patriots, and you win, it's a nice payoff.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How do we balance confronting antisemitism and protecting free speech?

[Kazinski]

More speech.

[Martinned]

Wait, I thought the current strategy was to deport everyone who criticises Israel?

[hobie]

First, you need to figure out what antisemitic means.

[Frank Drackman]

"figure"?? and you have the Balls to call others (OK, well mostly me) "Hayseeds"???

[hobie]

Well, Frankie, it's like this linked rally of orthodox rabbis for Mamdani declared: support for Palestine or contempt for Zionism is not conflated to mean antisemitism. But you hayseeds keep making it so...incorrectly.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BXQetndDJ/

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is the flare going up about a pending budget crisis in Massachusetts. Illegal aliens have busted the budget, no matter how much Healey wants to blame Trump.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/11/04/seiu-local-notifies-state-government-workers-of-proposal-to-reduce-full-time-employees-with-buyouts/

[John F. Carr]

When the legislature spends too much money on everything, no one thing is the problem.

[Commenter_XY]

To my fellow Tribe Members in NYC: Prepare to leave.

If you think the marxist antisemite will miraculously change his tune and become more moderate as a result of becoming Hizzoner, you are very much mistaken.

The 1K+ Rabbis who signed the letter are not wrong. And you know that to be true.

[Sarcastr0]

The strong majority of your fellow tribe members in NYC have proven to believe the facts about Mandami are very different from your take.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out "Self Hating"

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think so. Jewish people have historically always been well versed in the facts and many seem to have seen Zohran Mamdani as the best choice. It wasn't hard when Cuomo and Silvia were the alternatives.

[Martinned]

Yes. That's the truly fascinating thing about this election. As recently as 2017 the GOP nominated a perfectly electable (albeit not very high profile) candidate. What happened?

Actually, another fascinating question is why everyone is so excited about turnout when it's still below 50%. (And that's of registered voters, not even of eligible voters.)

[Poxigah146]

Jews are historically well versed in the facts? Tell me you don't know any Jews well without telling me that.

[Frank Drackman]

Frankie knows what the Facts is.

[Moderation4ever]

I do know a few Jewish people. All are well educated and attentive to politics. I was mostly speaking of my reading of history.

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0: "The strong majority of your fellow tribe members in NYC have proven to believe the facts about Mandami are very different from your take."

63% of Jews voted for Cuomo while 33% voted for Mamdani (per CNN exit poll).

You are an endless idiot steeped in mostly arbitrary beliefs.

[Moderation4ever]

One third is a significant amount in politics.

[Martinned]

But not a "strong majority".

[Bwaaah]

Thank you.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh. Yikes.

Yep I absolutely got that wrong.
I heard about all the Jewish support, went on that vibe, didn't bother to Google.

Egg on my face!

[Bwaaah]

You routinely accuse people of basing their beliefs on "vibes." You treat that practice not only as wrong, but as indicative of a lack of critical thinking.

Here's a hint about critical thinking: it's not needed to see wrong in others. It's most needed, and essential, to see wrong in ourselves. A healthy measure of self-doubt, and modesty in one's assertions, are signs of critical thinking.

[Bob from Ohio]

"endless idiot"

Yes he is, but you forgot liar.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a really stupid internet thing to accuse everyone that’s wrong of being a liar. Imagine a Trump toady of wanting that standard!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, better to accuse them of not understanding blowjobs!

[Malika la Maize]

Wow, this is some Kevin Bacon level degree of separation butt hurt white knighting!

I’m going to ask you something no one has ever thought to ask you, where were you touched to give you this feeling?

[TwelveInchPianist]

On my dick. By your mom.

[Bob from Ohio]

"accuse everyone "

I'm accusing a specific person. Not the first time for him either.

Don't you have Grammar and Punctuation to whine about?

[Sarcastr0]

You do love to accuse me of lying all the time, and don't much like to provide proof.

I fucked up; the idea that my post was a plot to fool people seems a bit fanciful.

Anyhow, fuck you.

[Bob from Ohio]

You shave the truth all the time.

Perhaps you have an unverifiable [but totally supportive] anecdote to share now.

[Malika la Maize]

Look at this lil’ white knight!

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0 is a practitioner of 'new math' where a strong majority = 63% of Jews voted for Cuomo while 33% voted for Mamdani (per CNN exit poll).

It is hilarious. And he is a science guy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hey, if women can be a minority, why not?

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0: "The strong majority of your fellow tribe members in NYC have proven to believe the facts about Mandami are very different from your take."

CNN exit polls showed 63% of Jewish vote for Cuomo and 33% for Mamdani. On what "facts" did you base your belief to the contrary?

[Malika la Maize]

Holy shit, it needs more? lol.

[Bwaaah]

What needs more what? Did somebody else ask Sarc for an explanation of his basis? Did I miss it? (He provided one after I asked for it here.)

[Malika la Maize]

Your argument is you posted it once to say he’s wrong and another to ask his explanation? lol.

Remember when you did this act here that you were just a Bill Clinton liberal that’s suddenly disaffected? What a phony.

[JohnSmith97]

Vibes, always with the vibes..

[Sarcastr0]

Bwaaah gets obsessive about who he sees as his posting enemies.

Because I'm bad at resisting the temptation to reply, I keep him blocked most of the time; better for both of us.

[Bwaaah]

Mute me. Good for you. You can present yourself as not having seen my comment above about critical thinking. You can pretend you can ignore it and go unnoticed.

You got nothing but insightful remarks, Sarc. And I'm some shallow, off-base thinker who talks nonsense that no reasonable person understands.

The gang is with you. Your mute is engaged. I feel so small now.

[JohnSmith97]

Did you actually write that with a straight face? You stalk Brett in here like he owes you money.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm thinking that the Marxist Antisemite is going to find himself in Federal Court with some degree of frequency.

[Martinned]

Yes, I think that's a fair bet, given the Regime's MO. Let's hope that there are sufficiently many judges left who still do their duty under the Constitution.

[Commenter_XY]

The hamas human animals returned the remains of the last American, Itay Chen, to Israel yesterday.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-872706

[Martinned]

Has perpetual peace erupted in the Middle East yet?

[Don Nico]

No, and it is unlikely to. Turkey is unlikely to let it happen

[Martinned]

That can't be right. The Great Leader promised there would be everlasting peace, and he never lies.

[Frank Drackman]

Only the Dead have seen the end of War.
And by "Dead" I mean Dead People, not THE Dead.
And I didn't just make that up, Pluto said it back in Ancient Greece.

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

He also claims to have stopped many wars. No reason not include stopping the Gaza war multiple times.

[grb]

Don Nico : "Turkey is unlikely to let it happen"

It's Don Nico posting from an imaginary galaxy again. The evil machinations of Turkey - Turkey! - are the only obstacle to Mideast peace. To be fair, I know where it comes from. I regularly read the major Israeli newspapers and the columnists & pols there are up in arms about Turkey being part of any Gaza international force. Truth be told, they're generally against any scheme or plan for Gaza, but Turkey seems to be a particular target.

It barely makes any sense, even in that milieu. Turkey is a grubby little state led by an untrustworthy Trump-style junior despot, but it's hardly a top one-hundred force for mayhem. But when Nico gets some idea stuck in his brain, it's stuck - however wacko....

[Stephen Lathrop]

grb — Help me out. Is Turkey's current capacity for mayhem that much diminished from its customary high level?

[grb]

Turkey regularly upsets any number of countries with contrarian positions. For instance, they were one of the ones than dithered endlessly on Sweden entry into NATO. They've helped the Russian evade sanctions over Ukraine. And - of course - they're half of the endless mess over Cyprus. Despite being in NATO, their foreign policy often resembles a non-aligned state like India.

That said (and leaving aside the steady erosion of democracy under Erdoğan), they're a country whose mischief is limited by their politician, military, & economic power - as well as the need to balance their appeal to opposing blocs. They're certainly nowhere near being any power broker in the Middle East, much less a major bar to peace. That's just gibberish.

But it's reflected in the current Israeli press, where Turkey is execrated as a supporter of Hamas. I don't claim expert authority on the charge, but it seems to have little substance besides some pro-Hamas comments by Erdoğan after 07Oct. Beyond that, evidence seems thin to nonexistent.

Of course Netanyahu himself helped prop-up Hamas behind the scenes before their October terrorist attack. That too is discussed in the Israeli media, though less frequently due to its awkwardness. He's told people on multiple occasions that a strong Hamas is a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority and lessens pressure to negotiate toward a Palestinian state. Pre-07Oct, there would be an occasional terrorist incident or outbreak of hostilities, but that was an acceptable price to have a (legitimate) boogeyman that makes peace talks impossible. After 07Oct, that was obviously something to be denied & repudiated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_support_for_Hamas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas

[grb]

One example :

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

[Commenter_XY]

No, not yet. The war is over only when both sides say it is.

Neither Israel nor hamas have said the war is over.

[Dr. Ed 2]

18 pounds of cocaine delivered to Healey's office....

https://howiecarrshow.com/add-aide-busted-for-coke-trafficking-to-healeys-distinctions/

[Frank Drackman]

I was wondering where that blow I ordered went.

[jb]

Holy crap, is that the kind of site you read for "news"? No wonder you are the way you are.

I'm just gonna say: that guy seems to suggest that all "DEI hires" are incompetent, but this guy managed to traffic 40+ pounds of cocaine. Seems like he must be doing something right!

[Malika la Maize]

Interesting to see GOP riding Trump’s coattails to defeat yesterday. Of course he handled it as one would expect:

In social media posts Tuesday, Trump claimed without evidence that there was widespread fraud surrounding California’s Proposition 50 ballot measure, a Democratic-led effort to change the state’s congressional map in response to Republican-led redistricting in Texas. He also insulted Jewish voters who supported Zohran Mamdani in New York City, and alleged that energy costs and crime would spike if Democratic gubernatorial candidates won in New Jersey and Virginia.

“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump wrote about Proposition 50, alleging the system is under “very serious legal and criminal review.”

California election officials said that the White House’s claims were “baseless,” and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called Trump’s comment “the ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE.” The ballot measure was declared passed shortly after polls closed late Tuesday night.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2025/11/04/trump-mamdani-jewish-voters-new-york/

[Sarcastr0]

Given the baseline indicated by today, the GOP gerrymanderfest just got a lot more risky.

[Michael P]

Stock markets have already taken a dive in response to unstable, anti-commerce politicians and causes winning yesterday.

[Frank Drackman]

You could just as well say it's in response to the first CFB Playoff rankings (Texas A&M #3?? that won't end well)

[Michael P]

It's well-established that stock market moves are most truly explained by whatever cause is first posited to be the reason. By precedence, my explanation is correct.

(I mean, we've recently rehashed on these pages why Democrats' gerrymandering fantasies are fever dreams. So we might as well move on to a different take, instead of reminding Gaslight0 that he's still wrong and that his attempts to mislead us about reality still fail.)

[Martinned]

So how do you explain the fact that the S&P 500 is up 0.5% at the time of writing?

[Michael P]

You realize it's still down 0.5% from Monday, right?

[Kazinski]

Stock Market is just getting dizzy, its scary looking down from that high.

[John 4]

Based on what indicators?

[Kazinski]

The current PE of 31.79 for the SP500, long term average is around 16.

So that imputes an earnings based return of ~3%, or even if you go with a forward PE of 23 based on projected earnings rather than current earnings it still just pencils out as 4% return.

Since that is basically the risk free return from treasuries, it seems historically pricy.

[John 4]

I assumed we were taking about in relation to the election, since that was the context to which you were replying. I should have realized it wasn’t relevant.

[Kazinski]

No, a few local elections in democratic jurisdictions are not going to set a new trend in the stock market.

Sure it will affect some companies as the relocate out of NY, but some of them may even find their way to NJ or VA.

Martinned had it right below.

What may set a new trend is concern about over investment in AI, and lack of returns.

Not everything is political.

[Nelson]

Tell that to Michael P. His MAGA-deranged take is that the S&P is down .5% because Democrats wiped the floor with the GOP yesterday.

[Martinned]

Don't get high on pre-trading. It would be pretty silly if Wall Street cared about some local races.

[Sarcastr0]

Number not go up today?

Doooom!

[bernard11]

Have they?

[jb]

I was thinking this same thing last night. If you gerrymander based on 2024 results but then the 2026 election shifts substantially to the left, you may actually hand a much bigger majority to the Dems.

The Senate is still going to be tough in 2026, but Trump seems intent on doubling down on all his worst ideas, so maybe that will put it into reach.

[Zarniwoop]

I was wondering how Trump would melt down and whinge. Not if, just how.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree here, you knew this was coming. He warming up his claims of fraud for 2026.

[Moderation4ever]

What should really scaring Trump is that Democrats got away with the fraud even when his own DOJ monitors where there checking out the polling sites.

[Michael P]

In more Two Tier news, a court in the UK acquitted three people who admitted to vandalizing Stonehenge, apparently because the judge directed the acquittal if the vandals' excuse for the vandalism was that they had good intentions.

Meanwhile, posting memes or true things about immigrants gets people sent to jail there.

[Malika la Maize]

Info:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjekdqj7529o.amp

[Martinned]

And surprisingly in another trial concerning the same protest the defendants were refused the right to rely on that defence, and were convicted. I suspect this is headed to the Court of Appeal pretty quickly.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/05/just-stop-oil-protesters-convicted-after-being-denied-right-to-state-climate-facts

[Michael P]

Which part of the M25's gantries go over Stonehenge?

[Martinned]

None, but it's the same "Just Stop Oil" campaign.

[wvattorney13]

That's astounding. I was there last summer right after this happened and was talking to the tour guide about it. We were told that we could not touch the stones when we had the inside the circle tour. I guess I should have just whispered "Free Palestine" and reached out my hand.

What is head scratching about the ruling is that even if you entertain this ridiculous idea on its own terms, these people were not protesting Stonehenge, but environmental policy which has nothing to do with Stonehenge.

Is the idea that if I am mad about anything, I can just deface OTHER things?

[Martinned]

There has been confusion about this in the past, but I'd thought that the Court of Appeal had already sorted this out. I guess they're going to have to repeat the message.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colston_Four_trial#Reference_to_the_Court_of_Appeal

[TwelveInchPianist]

scrawling a message on a pavement using water soluble paint might technically be sufficient to sustain a charge of criminal damage ... but to prosecute or convict for doing so as part of a political protest might well be a disproportionate response.

The Convention does not provide protection to those who cause criminal damage during protest which is violent or not peaceful.

But apparently it protects people who cause criminal damage during a non-violent, peaceful protest.

What the hell are you guys doing over there?

[Malika la Maize]

From the BBC article it wasn’t as if the damage was de minimis:

“The powder was promptly cleaned from the stones at a cost of £620.”

[Martinned]

Presumably the protesters can still be sued civilly for that money.

[Michael P]

And hurt feelings from a Xeet are still sufficient to imprison people in Old Blighted, I mean Blighty.

[Martinned]

Wait, are you complaining that UK courts protect free speech too much or too little? Because you appear to have done a 180 here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I think we're complaining that they protect free speech too little, and vandalism too much.

[Michael P]

The UK is just formalizing the old saw about "your speech is violence, their violence is speech".

[Bob from Ohio]

UK courts protect free speech for some too much and too little for others. All for political reasons.

Muslims and leftists get maximum free speech, their opponents get hardly any.

[Sarcastr0]

Above, Michael took an edgy joke and turned it into "a guy who wants to kill his political opponent and kids."

He then accused the left (collectively?) of some random murder in Oklahoma.

And he has the chutzpah to complain about other people conflating speech with violence.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Is the idea that if I am mad about anything, I can just deface OTHER things?"

It sounds like you can as long as you do it peacefully.

[Stephen Lathrop]

As a matter of practical politics, experience shows that attacks irrelevant to issues in question may be the most effective. It can be an easy political job to fob off as a solution some marginal amelioration of even substantive issues under protest.

It can be almost impossible politically if the matter under protest gets expressed with irrational-seeming attacks, which nevertheless deliver politically catastrophic results. The only solution to those may be to actually use politics to fix the problems which provoked the irrationality.

See the history of the U.S. civil rights movement, the long-hot-summer responses, and the politics which resulted.

[Kazinski]

Even more importantly Tommy Robinson got acquitted of "terrorism" for not giving the police the pin to his phone:

"Tommy Robinson cleared of terror offence after not giving police access to his phone"

I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you [Tommy Robinson] stood for and your political beliefs that acted for the principle reason for this stop", said Judge Goozee.

Robinson had been detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows officers to question people at UK ports to determine potential links to terrorism.

When he was asked to hand over the phone's Pin, Robinson replied: "Not a chance bruv... It's my work, I'm a journalist."

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued that the stop was politically motivated, saying the "predominant influence" on PC Mitchell Thorogood's decision to stop him was: "'oh look, it's Tommy Robinson"'.

Williamson added: "If MI5 didn't think that Mr Lennon is a terrorist, what did PC Thorogood think he was going to learn by asking him about publicly available information?"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9ken44n0eo

Then Tommy gave a shootout to Elon:
"After the verdict, he again thanked the Tesla boss billionaire again, saying: "Elon Musk I am forever grateful. If you didn't step in and fund my legal fight for this then I'd probably be in jail."

[Frank Drackman]

35th Anniversary of the Assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane, (The) Zoran Man-damn-he wasn't even a twinge in his Marxist Father's Loins. A little bit too Ironic for me.

Frank

[grb]

And yesterday was the anniversary of the Yitzhak Rabin assassination. Which one of those tragic and criminal events were more consequential?

[Frank Drackman]

Well duh, I liked Rabin, thanks to him Israel got F4 Phantoms and eventually F-15's and F-16's.
Ironically (dontcha think?) Israel's birthrate is so low they allowed Rabin's killer to have conjugal visits and now he's the proud father of several children. (How do I get one of these conjugal visits?? No, not with him, for myself)

Frank

[Michael P]

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/inspect-all-candy-needles-found-in-halloween-candy-in-rockville/4010077/

In an update to a story about seeing needles found in candy that I mentioned the other day:

On Monday, police said their investigation determined “the incident was a hoax carried out by a 9-year-old child within the household where the report originated. The child admitted to placing sewing needles in two packages of gummy bears.”

[Frank Drackman]

Kid's got a future in Journalism, and let me guess, is he Sunni or Shit-ite??

[Malika la Maize]

Is Journalism a band, or are you ignorant of basic English and/or performing a sad copying of Trump’s weird writing style?

[Frank Drackman]

It's a Noun, capitalized in some Languages, and when I type I capitalize them it's a reflex, like how you say stupid Shit (noun Slang: Vulgar. excrement; feces.) Or like how your Ball Sack raises slightly if you stroke your inner Thigh (the "Cremaster Reflex")

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

We speak English around here:

No, journalism is not capitalized unless it is at the beginning of a sentence or is part of a proper noun, such as the title of a specific publication or course. It is a common noun, so it should be lowercase in general usage.

Do you want some links to adult education in English?

[Frank Drackman]

Some of us speak more than one language, would you like some links to broaden your monolingualism?

[Malika la Maize]

Maybe try speaking one at a time?

[John 4]

You barely speak English so I’m not sure that makes you multilingual

[apedad]

FYI, Frank is half German so his comments are half English, half German, and half gibberish.

The German language capitalizes Hauptwörter (nouns).

[Malika la Maize]

That dog doesn’t seem to hunt, see below.

[John 4]

He’s a foreigner! Get him!!!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is Journalism a band, or are you ignorant of basic English and/or performing a sad copying of Trump’s weird writing style?"

You've been making grammar comments for months now. Changed Frank much?

Its just tedious at this point.

[Malika la Maize]

Bob: why are you criticizing my comrade who keeps fucking that goat in the public square? You haven’t stoped him from fucking that goat, I bet you feel pretty foolish now!

See also “TDS” charges.

[Bob from Ohio]

Frank comments, you make a grammar comment, he responds, you make a further similar grammar comment, ad nauseum

You are just boring.

[Frank Drackman]

Word in the Steve Banyon-verse is that Man-damn-he lied on his Naturalization form when he denied his membership in "The Holy Land Foundation" one of the organizations that funnels money to Ham-Ass. Oath of Orifice isn't until January 1 (I don't see Mayor Adams leaving early). Like in one of those Perry Mason episodes where it turns out the suspect isn't married to his wife after all, so she CAN testify against him, (The) Zoran should never have been "naturalized" in the first place. But of course, no way "45/47/48?" would break Political norms and have the guy flown back to Uganda in the middle of the night.

Frank

[Michael P]

You said "Frank" twice. Do you like being frank?

[Frank Drackman]

Diplopia is one of the early signs of Glioblastoma, might want to check that.

[hobie]

Looks like MDS is now a thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, I more see a Jewish lawyer raising this in litigation against him.

[Zarniwoop]

Projection is a helluva drug!

President Trump granted a pardon last month to Changpeng Zhao, a billionaire crypto founder who pleaded guilty to money-laundering violations in 2023. Zhao’s company, Binance, had even struck a business deal in May involving World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s own crypto venture. But when the president sat down with CBS’s “60 Minutes” recently, he gave us this unforgettable moment:

“NORAH O’DONNELL: The government at the time said that CZ had caused significant harm to U.S. national security essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around. Why did you pardon him?

DONALD TRUMP: OK, are you ready? I don’t know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that and I heard it was a Biden witch hunt.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/lindseys-lens/5588677-trump-crypto-pardon-controversy/

[Armchair]

That's actually pretty accurate. Zhao did have a 4 month sentence. (Which he did entirely serve.)

Seems Trump did know about the pardon.

[Malika la Maize]

So why “I don’t know who he is?”

[Zarniwoop]

“NORAH O’DONNELL: How do you address the appearance of pay for play?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, here’s the thing. I know nothing about it because I’m too busy doing the other. I can only tell you that. No, I can only tell you this. Um, my sons are into it. I’m glad they are because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good.”

So is Trump lying that he doesn’t know, is he easily manipulated to sign things put in front of him, or is he senile and forgetting why he pardoned someone?

This isn’t fake news about autopen allegations; this is Trump’s own words. None of the answers look good.

Although I think lying, manipulated, and dementia could all be in play here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Trump should certainly know who he's pardoning, but I don't see any suggestion here that the pardon was forged or done without Trump's authorization.

[grb]

No, Zhao just bought the pardon with a two billion dollar investment in Trump's crypto business. But why bother bringing-up that obvious bribe? TIP knows his cult deity is a sleazy & corrupt lifelong criminal selling U.S. government services for personal profit.

But TwelveInchPianist doesn't care. Seems he's corrupted too now.

[loki13]

Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
-Nixon

Well, when the president does it, that means that Papa needs some more marble and gold, and what's a few billion between friends?
-Trump

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, we've had questionable pardons in the past, like Marc Rich, Huter Biden, etc. It doesn't seem like there's much that can be done about them.

That didn't seem to be Zarniwoop's complaint, though.

[Zarniwoop]

correct - unlike legally groundless and factually baseless bleating "nuh-buh-but Biden autopen!!1!", Trump's own words call into question his core motivations, knowledge, honesty, and mental capacity.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If you say so. Trump appears to have known about, and signed, these pardons, though.

[Malika la Maize]

One about whom he doesn’t know?

“Hey, President, here’s a pardon for a guy who deserves it.”

“Ok”
Scrawls signature.

[Bob from Ohio]

Most pardons go to people the president does not personally know after a recommendation from someone.

[Sarcastr0]

You had to add the word 'personally.' Which is deceitful attempt to move the goalposts.

Trump's clueless about a big pardon he made.

For all their clanging about, the GOP hasn't managed to establish anything near that for Biden.

[Bob from Ohio]

"deceitful"

Well, you are the local expert at being that.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Trump's clueless about a big pardon he made."

To be fair, here's another scenario:

1. Trump is well aware of Zhao because he was bribed with a two billion dollar investment in his crypto business that generated massive profits directly into his pocket.

2. Trump's brain decay is so far advanced he could offer no better defense of this corruption than the fumbling word salad seen on CBS. Even more humiliating is the part the network cut, after the reporter tried to ask a follow-up question. Trump was in addled panic mode then:

“I can't say, because… I can't say…I'm not concerned. I don't… I'd rather not have you ask the question,” Trump said, according to the full CBS transcript of the interview.

If you want to know why the senile old man often drifts away into bizarre & rambling non-sequiturs, it's because he's run out of brain processing and is just filling space. That's why we've seen multiple foreign leaders staring at their shoes in silent embarrassment as Trump babbles about the terror of windmills, railroads to Hawaii, or the special meaning & history of the word "grocery".

[TwelveInchPianist]

Trump said, " I don’t know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that and I heard it was a Biden witch hunt."

And it appears he signed the pardons.

Biden didn't sign the pardons, and there's no evidence that he even knew about many of them.

[grb]

TwelveInchPianist : " ...there's no evidence that he even knew about many of them."

Just like your sleazy idol, you're incapable of the truth. Biden has said on multiple occasions that he instigated and approved of every single pardon. And he did so in interviews where he spoke in whole sentences, made rational points, and didn't drift off in bizarre wacko tangents.

Have you watched Trump lately? He's no longer capable of that for any extended period of time. His brain rot is too far advanced.

[Voize of Reazon]

Trump said "I don't know who he is", not "I don't personally know him".

[Malika la Maize]

I just found out the loser of the Cincinnati mayoral race was Vance’s half brother.

Course who would want to be mayor of Cincinnati?

https://newrepublic.com/post/202697/jd-vance-half-brother-loss-cincinnati-mayor-race

[grb]

I hear they have good radio stations.....

[Martinned]

Yesterday someone mentioned the acquittal of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson).

The judge's decision is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/R-v-Stephen-Lennon.pdf

Some people have pointed out that the judge seemed to proceed on the basis that political beliefs are protected characteristics under the Equality Act (par. 18). On this point the judge seems to have misdirected himself on the law. Only philosophical beliefs are protected characteristics, and a lot of political beliefs are not philosophical beliefs in the sense of the law.

While I think the Equality Act's treatment of political beliefs and philosophical beliefs is generally nutty and ill conceived, I'm not sure this mess means that the judge reached the wrong conclusion. As far as I know retalliating against someone for their protected speech by criminally investigating and/or prosecuting them is forbidden by art. 10 ECHR just as much as it is under the US First Amendment. So this whole detour through the Equality Act seems unnecessary to me. (Or at least it ought to be.) Still, errors of law in a court judgment are never ideal.

[Malika la Maize]

Tom Brady revealed Tuesday that a young dog of his is actually a clone created from a family pet who died almost two years ago.

In a statement shared by Colossal Biosciences, a company that says it specializes in “species restoration,” Brady thanked it for giving him and his family “a second chance with a clone of our beloved dog.” Brady is an investor in the company.

The original dog, Lua, died in December 2023, according to Brady’s ex-wife, Gisele Bündchen. On Tuesday, Brady said he “worked with Colossal and leveraged their noninvasive cloning technology through a simple blood draw of our family’s elderly dog before she passed.” He credited the company with taking just “a few short months” to provide him with the clone, reportedly named Junie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2025/11/04/tom-brady-dog-clone/

[Frank Drackman]

Ironic in that Brady's a Clone himself.
Actually more of a Cyborg.

[Martinned]

Has no one ever told you about Milei's dogs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_(Javier_Milei%27s_dog)

[Malika la Maize]

Wow, that’s weird.

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone catch MTG on "Realtime" last week and "The View" yesterday?? Reminded me of how my Sister and her friends would have the New Girl they hated over for a Slumber Party and they'd all be "Besties" afterwards.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

So why would sister and slumber party be capitalized but week and friends not?

[TwelveInchPianist]

And "New" is an adjective. It's like dogs and cats living together.

[Frank Drackman]

We have a Dog, a Cat, and a Ferret and they live together just fine.
Well for the most part, Francine (the Ferret, if you get a Ferret their name has to start with "F") is certainly the Brains of the Menagerie.
Years ago my Daughters had a Gerbil, that didn't work out so well (for the Gerbil, Yes go ahead Queenie, make the obligatory "Gerbil Joke")

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

What I find interesting is that MTG seems to be charting her own path here. From what I have read of her history she seem like an opportunist. Not that that is totally bad as most politicians are similarly opportunists. Obliviously she is seeing opportunity in taking a newer path, maybe looking to move into a new lane for post Trump era.

BTW - That same segment of Bill Maher had a UFO nut Dan Farah on. I struggled through that segment.

[Malika la Maize]

Did she discuss space lasers with him?

[Moderation4ever]

No, but I did read that she described the shutdown as a male pissing contest on The View. Obviously she knows her audience.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only one who noticed that Israel is actually looking at lasers as a form of defense against rockets? Apparently having some success with them...

Now this had to be in development for a while, and the problem with any directed energy weapon is the energy that misses (or penetrates) the target and continues onward. Accidentally lighting fires would be a concern.

"Jewish Space Lasers" still seem that outrageous? And Israel might actually be able to do this.

[Frank Drackman]

and I've heard they're attaching them to the heads of Sharks

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "Am I the only one...?"

Yes, Ed, you are. Here's a reminder how the "Jewish Space Laser" meme emerged :

In a now-deleted 2018 social media post, Greene speculated that the devastating California wildfires were ignited by a laser beam from space involving "space solar generators" and the Rothschild banking family. Critics and media outlets widely mocked the claim as the "Jewish space laser" conspiracy theory, highlighting its antisemitic undertones.

The U.S. is currently engaged in research on laser weapons, as are the Russians, Chinese, and - yes - Israelis. That has nothing to do with Greene's loony toons post. And - yes - see remains a wack-job even if she criticizes the White House.

[LawTalkingGuy]

A few years ago during the McCarthy as Speaker era I saw some observers note that despite being a lunatic she was actually a fairly savvy operator who could influence more normie Republicans in the caucus like McCarthy.

[Kazinski]

I think the reason she is pivoting is because the polls were so brutal when she was considering a Senate run:

https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-georgia-senate-poll-2067352

She's discovered the strange new respect that even the looniest of right wingers get when they criticize Trump.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/revolt-marjorie-taylor-greene-now-donald-trumps-fiercest-critic

[ReaderY]

In today’s tarriff case, I think that the President loses as a simple matter of ordinary statutory interpretation. The words of a statute should not be intterpreted in isolation, but in context with other statutes. Congress has enacted several statutes covering tarriffs specifically, all giving the President limited authority under specific conditions. One specifically covers trade deficits. It limits Presidential authority to temporarily modify tariffs to address deficits to a maximum increase of 15% for a maximum of 150 days, and requires specific administrative procedures and findings first. For this reason, the IEEPA does not cover it.

While the provision requiring revenue bills to originate in the House may well reflect Framer intent to ensure only Congress can modify taxes, the Court need not reach that question to decide this case. It need not use special doctrines like the Major Questions Doctrine either.

[David Nieporent]

Sauer started on this one just like his merits brief did: fabricating complete lies and hiding behind the fact that the president said them.

[Keldonric]

I agree from my layman’s perspective that it should be easy statutorily. Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act was Congress’s response to Nixon’s 1971 surcharges—a narrow, time-limited grant of tariff power. Modern IEEPA tariffs don’t fit neatly under either taxation or commerce: they’re framed as emergency measures under national-defense law but often defended for their revenue effect, drifting toward the Taxing Power without any Clause 1 delegation—hence the Origination-Clause tension.

Examining the issue in the early years of the Republic is instructive. Madison’s 1829 letter to Cabell shows that early tariffs under the Commerce Clause, like the Tariff of 1789, were meant to regulate trade by promoting manufactures, not to raise money. By contrast, the Tariff of 1816 was enacted mainly to refill the Treasury after the War of 1812—a clear Clause 1 fiscal duty. The same instrument could rest on different powers depending on its purpose.

[Riva]

Suck on this Not Guilty:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.138.0.pdf

[LawTalkingGuy]

[Kenneth Almquist]

Loki posted a link which analyzes this filing: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--where-s-the-lie
I predict you will ignore the analysis rather than attempt to refute it.

[Riva]

Well, Kenny, Mike Davis posted some analysis as well https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1985465412176232653.html
I predict you will ignore the analysis rather than attempt to refute, among other things:

Exhibit 13 that includes bombshell, damning evidence of then-FBI Director Comey's handwritten note--on FBI director letterhead--evidencing Comey's knowledge of--and even participation in--the Russian collusion criminal conspiracy against Trump.

Exhibit 5 gets worse.
James Comey, from his burner gmail with his alias Reinhold Niebuhr, states: No need. At this point it would shouting into the wind. Some day they will figure it out. And as Jack and Ben point out, my decision will be one a president elect Clinton will be very grateful for (though that wasn't why I did it).

In Exhibit 7, in response to planting a New York Times election-eve hit piece against Trump, then-FBI Director James Comey tells FBI special government employee Daniel Richman: "Well done my friend. Who knew this would. E so uh fun."

Exhibit 10 shows FBI special government employee Daniel Richman (aka "Michael Garcia") is leaking--as an anonymous source--to New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt on behalf of then-FBI Director James Comey. Comey testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee he never did this.

[ducksalad]

Here's some "analysis" on Exhibit 10:

Exhibit 10 is dated May 11, 2017.
Comey was fired May 9, 2017.
How do you get "then-FBI Director" out of that?

Grassley asked about anonymous sources May 3, 2017.
Cruz asked in 2020 whether what he told Grassley on May 3, 2017 was true.
You're claiming something he wrote on May 11, 2017 could make an answer he gave on May 3, 2017 retroactively false?

I suppose if Comey was a better person he could have volunteered that it was true when Grassley asked but things changed afterward. But I don't believe volunteering information not asked is required to avoid a perjury charge.

Didn't check your other exhibits, hope they're more convincing than this one.

[Riva]

That's your big fault? The text messages in question occurred shortly after his termination? You run with that clown.

[ducksalad]

No actually that's not the big fault. I just threw it in to show that the analysis you linked is careless and full of inaccuracies.

The more relevant fact, which makes Exhibit 10 a spectacularly missed slam dunk, is it that the exchange is dated *after* he supposedly lied about it.

[Riva]

It spectacularly proves you're an imbecile. Ex. 10 is one of several pieces of evidence that conclusively show that Comey was using Richman (aka "Michael Garcia") as an anonymous source to leak to The NY Times when Comey was FBI director.

[David Nieporent]

No, it actually shows to the contrary, as the lawfare piece makes clear. None of those emails reflect Comey authorizing Richman to leak anonymously to the NYT when he was FBI director.

[Riva]

I think all your BS really merits as a response is: Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion man. Because it's, well, just BS.

[not guilty]

How is any of that germane to the accused's September 30, 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony?

The "facts" recited in the government's response -- which deal with matters occurring long before that testimony -- show the absence of probable cause for this indictment.

[Riva]

The government's filing was a response to Comey's motion to dismiss the indictment as an allegedly vindictive and selective prosecution. The background evidence, noted only in part above, provides more than a sufficient basis for the investigation and later charges. And belies any claim that Comey was singled out without proper cause. And the motion argues, rather irrefutably, that Comey has produced NO evidence sufficient to support his allegations of vindictive motive/prosecution.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, it claims that Trump didn't personally direct the prosecution, which is of course a blatant lie.

[Riva]

You're a confused asshole today. The motion points out that Comey attempted to use as "evidence—a mix of news reports, social-media posts, and speculation." As laughable inadequate and stupid as the responses here.

[David Nieporent]

Um, yes. How do you think one shows vindictive prosecution? Do you think one calls the president as a witness and yells, "Did you order the Code Red" at him until he confesses?

[Riva]

A cursory review of the motion exposes you and whoever else as gaslighting buffoons so I don't really know why you persist in this effort, other than that you're simply an asshole. But here's the thing asshole, the court will actually read the motion and that's really all that matters at this point.

[David Nieporent]

Exhibit 13 that includes bombshell, damning evidence of then-FBI Director Comey's handwritten note--on FBI director letterhead--evidencing Comey's knowledge of--and even participation in--the Russian collusion criminal conspiracy against Trump.

That is not anything remotely like what it shows — for multiple reasons — and of course is not "damning" anyway since it has fuck-all to do with what Comey is charged with.

[Riva]

From the prosecution's motion:

"In the spring of 2025, a team of FBI investigators was assembled to examine possible reform of policies, procedures, compliance, and culture at the FBI. See Gov. Ex. 12. During their work, FBI investigators were alerted to a seemingly unused SCIF in FBI headquarters (Room 9582) containing a random collection of classified documents. Id. A large majority of the documents were on the floor in five burn bags. Id. Room 9582 was then subject to an inventory for the documents that were located inside. Id. Investigators located hundreds of pages relating to Crossfire Hurricane (2016 FBI investigation of alleged ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russia) and the then-classified appendix to the 2016 Durham Special Counsel Report (now
partially declassified). Id. Additionally, inside a locked safe within Room 9582, investigators located copies of handwritten notes of the defendant when he was the Director of the FBI. Id.; See Gov. Ex. 13 (Defendant’s handwritten notes). Defendant’s handwritten notes were not known to any prior investigative teams.

The investigative team reviewed access logs for Room 9582. See Gov. Ex. 12. The access logs showed an extended period of dormancy, where Room 9582 was rarely if ever accessed. Id.
Then, in late-December of 2024, access to Room 9582 began to pick up with a spike of activity occurring over the inauguration weekend (January 19 to 22, 2025). Id. The discovery of the handwritten notes is relevant considering the defendant’s prior testimony on September 30, 2020. Of note, during that hearing, the defendant was questioned by Senator Graham of South Carolina and Senator Hawley of Missouri. See Gov. Ex. 14. The questions focused on whether the defendant remembered “being taught” of “U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate DonaldTrump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” See id. The defendant responded by stating that “it doesn’t ring any bells with me” and “I don’t know what that refers to” and “I don’t remember receiving anything that is described in that letter.” See id. at 1 and 5. Despite this testimony, the defendant’s handwritten notes dated September 26, 2016, read: “HRC plan to tie Trump.” See Gov. Ex. 13 (Defendant’s handwritten notes)."

Focus, asshole, if you can, on the sentence in the second paragraph beginning with "The discovery of the handwritten notes is relevant..." It cannot be noted enough, I know you're an asshole, but do you have to be such a stupid asshole?

[David Nieporent]

That's because the discovery of the handwritten notes is not relevant, for many reasons including the fact that the indictment doesn't say anything about any exchange with Lindsey Graham or Josh Hawley.

[Riva]

You're outdoing yourself today asshole. As full of yourself, and blindingly stupid, as a communist islamist just elected mayor of NY.

[ReaderY]

The Solicitor General’s brief attempts to make up for a weakness in legal reasoning by a shrillness in tone, in places reading more like a Truth Social post than a legal brief.

The brief’s policy claims are apocalyptic, arguing that if we back to the way tariffs were determined prior to this year, this country will be completely destroyed. Let’s just say that’s the sort of claim one expects more from a street preacher protesting outside the Court than a senior government official arguing within it.

[Martinned]

Presumably she was trying to explain the nature of the emergency that the Regime is dealing with? In that case "apocalyptic" is presumably exactly what she was going for. And obviously in such circumstances we can't have the courts second guessing the President's assessment of the facts. After all, it's not like the courts have skills in fact finding. That's simply not their job.

[loki13]

There are so many issues that it's hard to know where to start.

One of my favorites? The brief first argues that ya gotta let Trump cook because otherwise other countries are just going to buy up all our assets.

But the brief later argues that if the Supreme Court stops Trump from cookin', then he won't be able to leverage those awesome deals he extorts from other countries that force them to ... um ... invest .... in our .... assets.

I hope I don't have to explain this. Okay, I will-
A foreign trade deficit is the flip side of what happens when you have a foreign investment surplus. Econ 101. That's argument 1.
Argument 2 is we need tariffs so that Trump can make more deals to have other countries invest in us.
PROFIT!

(I will, of course, not comment on the fact that many of Trump's announcements of deals and/or investments are often puffery and are never actually accomplished. Remember the concessions we got from China in his first term that he proudly announced? I don't, you don't, and China doesn't.)

[David Nieporent]

I will, of course, not comment on the fact that many of Trump's announcements of deals and/or investments are often puffery and are never actually accomplished.

Not many — all. Because of course foreign countries don't invest; foreign companies do. And the countries that are pretending to negotiate with Trump have no authority to commit private companies in their countries to invest in the U.S.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "...the countries that are pretending to negotiate with Trump have no authority...."

They don't need it. Countries that are pretending to negotiate with Trump know he's interested in only two things :

1. One day's headline, whether inconsequential puffery or not.

2. Flattery, to assuage the hollow emptiness inside Trump.

Real substantive negotiations are totally unnecessary. Hell, they'd probably just get in the way.

[bernard11]

One thing that struck me at the beginning of the brief was this:

the President, in his exercise of power over the military and foreign affairs, has determined are necessary to rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl and other lethal drugs across our borders. To the President, these cases present a stark choice: With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation. The President has stated that “[o]ne year ago, the United States was a dead country, and now, because of the trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have so badly abused us, America is a strong, financially viable, and respected country again."

This is utter nonsense, from start to finish. Total bullshit. As someone once said, "every word is a lie, including 'a,' 'and', and 'the.'

Yet I have not seen this mentioned in accounts of the hearing. Was it? Does the blatant stupidity and ignorance even matter?

[David Nieporent]

Don't know if the media caught that, but every lawyer who paid attention to the hearing commented on it.

[bernard11]

Good. But does this influence the court?

[David Nieporent]

No. I mean, contempt for Trump is already baked in, but they're not going to let the silliness influence their legal ruling.

[loki13]

The SG's brief shows the weakness of the administration's case.

I've previously noted that, for the most part, the appellate part of the DOJ is not (as badly) infected by the Trumpist rot of corruption and incompetence as the rest of the DOJ, but it's not completely immune.

Anyway, when you see a brief like this (one which, verbatim, uses Trump's words as if they were legal arguments and simply engages in hyperbole instead of legal argument) it's usually a flashing signal that your legal arguments vary from weak to non-existent.

[David Nieporent]

It's always a bit risky to form opinions based on oral argument — and especially based on only one side's presentation — but I think it's safe to say that from what I've heard so far, there are no liberal votes for Trump.

[David Nieporent]

So, there's always the danger of wishcasting, but — again, based on what I've heard so far, including half of Katyal's presentation — some of the conservative justices are looking for a way to grant a narrow ruling against Trump, but none seem enthusiastic about ruling in his favor.

[Zarniwoop]

The conservative side of the bench did seem pretty cold during the SG's argument.

Katyal just rocked his answer about Algonquin.

SG's rebuttal should be interesting.

[wvattorney13]

"whether IEEPA on the one hand could give the president very broad powers – for example, allowing him to shut down all trade with another country – but on the other hand would not allow him to take the much smaller step, in her view, of imposing tariffs. Such a paradox, Kavanaugh suggested, created an “odd donut hole” in IEEPA. "

I have never liked this sort of argument. There may be many reasons why you would give a person the power to completely end a business relationship but not give that person the power to regulate all minutia of it. It may be that you would prefer the ending of the relationship to the newly negotiated one.

[David Nieporent]

The greater-power-probably-includes-the-lesser is not a terrible argument, though as you note there are many reasons why it might not apply in given situations. But the larger issue here is the misidentification of tariffs as a lesser power. Imposing a tax on Americans is qualitatively different, not inferior to, merely blocking imports from a country.

[wvattorney13]

That's one reason I don't like the argument because whether one thing is a lesser than the other depends on how you state it. As you state the issue, tariffs are clearly not a lesser of an embargo.

But if I recharacterized it as blocking American access to a foreign market entirely vs. imposing a high cost on Americans to participate in the foreign market it starts to look lesser.

[David Nieporent]

Having now listened to the whole thing, I continue to think Trump loses bigly, but I expect that we get a whole bunch of opinions/ concurrences based on different theories as to why.

[wvattorney13]

"Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Sauer to point to other places in federal law where Congress used the phrase “regulate … importation” to give the president the power to impose tariffs. "

Ooph. When you get a question like that, you do not have the judge's vote.

[santamonica811]

Disagree. I thought Alito and Thomas seemed perfectly happy to whore their integrity in favor of Trump's argument(s). I would not be at all shocked by a 7-2 decision.

[ducksalad]

Rather than systemic rot, isn't a more likely explanation that this issue is so important to Trump personally that he decided to insert himself into the process? Rather than let the pros at DoJ handle it, he ordered them to use stuff that, in his mind, is utterly convincing and irrefutable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cuomo was a terrible candidate. He should take responsibility for that. New Yorkers had an array of clowns and picked the one with the smiley face.

AND: "Only a uniquely hated politician with his connections and campaign coffers could bungle an election versus a political unknown this badly. Whether it was his bare-bones daily schedules that spent more time with donors than voters or his desperate flip-flopping on issues like closing Rikers Island during the campaign, Cuomo proved one thing to be true: the only thing he has ever believed in is his own ambition" — from "Andrew Cuomo’s embarrassing loss to Zohran Mamdani in NYC mayoral election ends Cuomo family political dynasty" (NY Post).
Posted by Ann Althouse at 3:04 AM 42 comments
Tags: Andrew Cuomo, Curtis Sliwa, NYC, Zohran Mamdani

[Martinned]

Cuomo was a terrible candidate.

Yes. Which is presumably (or by definition) why neither party nominated him. (Or Eric Adams.)

[Malika la Maize]

He’s the saddest figure in politics today imho. So desperate for power and turned down yet again.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how being a creepy old man doesn't go over well with the Bee-Otches.
OK, that's a word from YOUR language, did I get it right? it's "Bee-Otches" with a glottal stop between the "Bee" and the "Otches"??
Or is it "Bitch-Izz"?? I've heard it both ways.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Does this creature have a language (Language)?

[Bwaaah]

You're only supposed to use one question mark after a hyphenated Izz.

[Bored Lawyer]

Cuomo is a pathetic figure. Have to agree with you there. Of all the people to run against Mamdani, he was the weakest.

[Martinned]

Still got a lot more votes than the actual GOP nominee.

[MoreCurious]

Name recognition could explain that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Shop-talk: receiving an unfavorable decision for the wrong reasons or because the court did an incomplete/shallow analysis is the worst. It’s so much nicer when the court rules against you for the exact reason you thought they would/should.

[loki13]

Reminder- you can listen to the oral arguments (tariffs!) live stream starting at 10am EST. For the very few commenters here who actually like to be informed before they comment.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

[loki13]

Just went live now (arguments have not yet begun)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

SCOTUSBlog also has a live blog.

[Jmaie]

Favorite line, “it’s not a donut hole, it’s a whole different pastry.“

It was nice listening to people discuss the legal niceties respectfully, no personal insults required. It’s too bad there isn’t a blog like that…

[David Nieporent]

Everyone liked that one. A great example of an effective use of humor. (One should generally eschew attempts at such before SCOTUS.)

[loki13]

Great reading material today for the people interested in the Comey case. No, not the many other collateral issues, but ... trying to understand what the actual government theory behind the case is.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--where-s-the-lie

It's an analysis (based on the DOJ's response to Comey's MTD for vindicative prosecution) that lays out the DOJ's theory in detail (the actual response is linked to as well).

It's .... well, once you read it, you quickly realize why no competent prosecutor brought this case. It doesn't exist. Which we all knew, but seeing it laid out shows the insanity (and inanity) of it all.

Again, if you read the DOJ's response, you feel that it's the usual "Trump vendetta pron" that you always hear. But seeing how the facts line up with any cognizable case (let alone the actual charges) ... ugh.

From now on, I am going to call incompetent filings "Halligans." As in, "Woah, did you see what Plaintiff filed last night? They'll need a mulligan on that Halligan!"

[Zarniwoop]

After I read a few choice Wittes comments to a sister on our weekly keep-in-touch phone call, she suggested that completely unfounded, bat sheet crazy accusations with non-existent factual bases in an indictment henceforth be called “Hallegations”.

I think tying her name to a sense of core incompetence combined with political servility would be completely appropriate.

[loki13]

....Hallegations! Oh, I am totally stealing that. Excellent, sir, excellent.

"I can't tell you what is worse today- AI hallucinated case citations, or hallegations. .... yeah, you're right. Hallegations are always worse than hallucinations."

[Zarniwoop]

I LOL'd when she came up with that, and she gave permission for it to be used far and wide without attribution 🙂

[David Nieporent]

she gave permission for it to be used far and wide without attribution

Good, because I'd feel stupid saying, "Get a look at the hallegations in this case, as Zarniwoop's sister would call them."

[Zarniwoop]

Also, describing the DoJ response in a few words to my girlfriend, I had to reach for support from Groucho: the brief is a legal version of “who are you gonna trust, me or your lying eyes?”

[loki13]

Yep. I'd also work in the, "They are pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining."

[Moderation4ever]

Not a lawyer, but I am wondering if a judge can sanction a prosecutor in a case like this where they seem to have put together such a poor case? It seems like the DOJ is wasting the courts time, which is the court's money also.

[John F. Carr]

By custom, judges do not sanction prosecutors for bringing bad cases. On the other hand, Trump's Justice Department is not following custom. I could imagine any of the many frustrated judges breaking with tradition. Who knows if the Supreme Court would uphold the sanction.

[Zarniwoop]

Especially when the Mag Judge has to issue a supplemental order saying (paraphrased) "I ordered you to provide complete transcripts, and what you provided ain't that ... you have until the end of tomorrow"

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.148.0.pdf

[Zarniwoop]

Ope and the above was for Grand Jury transcripts for in-camera review. DoJ apparently also not producing evidence to Comey in a timely manner:

Prosecutors must provide a grand jury with records and evidence from the investigation into former FBI Director James Comey, a federal judge ordered Wednesday.

At Wednesday’s hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick ordered prosecutors to produce the information by the end of Thursday, The Associated Press reported. Fitzpatrick said his concern was that the Department of Justice (DOJ) chose to “indict first and investigate later.”

Comey was present at the hearing but did not speak. When his lawyers told Fitzpatrick they had not seen the materials, the judge said, “We’re going to fix that, and we’re going to fix that today,” according to the AP.

These materials include communications with Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman, a friend of Comey’s and a special government employee at the FBI. Investigators seized these communications in 2019 and 2020.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5591009-court-requests-records-james-comey-indictment/

Does not bode well for the gubmint.

[ReaderY]

I am wondering if I have come up with an argument not mentioned in the briefs. The briefs only cover the standard non-delegation doctrine applicable to general matters.

But the Constitution has a special provision for revenue bills. All revenue bills must originate in the House. At the time of the Founding, the House was the only representative branch of the new Federal Government under the original Constitution.

This suggests that the Framers intended to enforce the “no taxation without representation” principle by preventing proposals to modify taxes from originating anywhere else.

And this in turn suggests a special doctrine for revenue matters. Unlike more general matters, The Framers specially wanted to prevent revenue decisios being made outside Congress. If they didn’t want tax policy originatig outside the House, a fortiori they didn’t want someone outside Congress deciding it.

This is not to say that the Administration can’t come up with rules clarifying and implementing details. But under this argument only Congress can make fundamental, core decisions like setting a tax rate.

Also, did IEEPA originate in the House? If it didn’t it can’t address tariffs even reading the reveue bill provision narrowly.

[OpinionsVary]

"Also, did IEEPA originate in the House"

I had the same idea a few months back. For a few minutes I had a dream of making a important legal discovery that could change the face of the world and... Then I checked wikipedia. Introduced to the House as H.R. 7738

[Martinned]

The Dutch constitution (which is almost as old as the US one) has a specific non-delegation doctrine for taxes. Almost everything can be sorted out "in or pursuant to a statute", but taxes have to be levied by statute. The only other category of matters where the constitution specifies that approach is criminal offences, which also have to be specified in actual statutes.

Of course, the constitution giveth and it takes away, because it does specifically mention "other levies", which can be subject of delegation.

Article 104
Taxes imposed by the State shall be levied pursuant to Act of Parliament. Other levies imposed by the State shall be regulated by Act of Parliament.

[Frank Drackman]

How about your Pediophile Kingie-Wingie? does he get "Special Consideration"???

[John F. Carr]

Is the tax/levy distinction like the tax/fee distinction in America?

In America, or parts of it, a user fee is a payment for a particular service not available by right, set no higher than necessary to recover costs of providing thge service. Boston, Massachusetts was not allowed to charge higher taxes for tall buildings that required more expensive firefighting equipment. Fire protection in an urban area is a public good. In parts of rural America, where fires don't spread house to house, fire protection is funded by optional fees rather than taxes. A government might charge a fee to use an athletic field but ordinary roads are open to all for free. Driving a car may cost extra. You're welcome to walk.

[Martinned]

Since we were talking about climate change yesterday, people might be interested to know that the European Central Bank has just published a legal working paper on "Human rights, the climate emergency, and the financial system".

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scplps/ecb.lwp23.en.pdf

From the abstract:

This paper first recalls the key facts and
outcomes from each of the three ECtHR climate rulings and explores the key findings in greater detail. Second, the paper outlines the climate rulings of other international courts and tribunals. Thereafter, the paper explains the relevance of the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling for the Union and its institutions. First, as a matter of substance, the paper explains how the ruling carries lessons for the ambition and implementation of the climate policies of the Union and its Member States. Second, the paper goes on to explore the procedural avenues for litigants to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), to challenge Union policies on the basis of the ECtHR’s ruling. The paper then outlines how the ruling may be relevant to the ECB, and for the national central banks (NCBs) and national competent authorities (NCAs) within the Eurosystem and Single Supervisory Mechanism. Finally, the paper explores how the ruling may be relevant to the financial sector, insofar as it increases the risk of litigation, and risks related to the process of adjustment towards a low-carbon economy (transition risk).

[Poxigah146]

As always, democracy is a racial head count.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I didn’t realize Spanberger was a postal inspector at one point in her career. She should be a front runner to run DHS based on that alone. USPIS is by far the most competent, professional and perhaps most importantly for our cosplay/content era, humble federal law enforcement agency.

I don’t have any illusions about abolishing ICE/CBP/DHS. But there can be significant culture changes there. And I think putting former or current postal inspectors in charge would do a lot to make those agencies better. Being led by tough but competent investigators would get some agents to shape up and push out the LARPing thugs. And I think it would be an easy sell: you know who does a lot to investigate and stop narcotics trafficking that apparently is worth doing war crimes over? The postal inspectors!

[Mr. Bumble]

Yet another example of the Peter Principle at work.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

LawTalkingGuy's comment looks like an example of Poe's Law.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not satirical at all: anyone who knows anything about federal law enforcement knows that the postal inspectors are the best. Talk to an AUSA sometime. Or a federal public defender. They’ll tell you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't they have to work for the USPS first in something else?
That WOULD make a difference. Imagine if you had to audit taxes for a year before you could join ATF...

[David Nieporent]

Don't they have to work for the USPS first in something else?

No. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Poxigah146]

I would love to see federal courts enjoin the new California map while leaving Texas in place lmao.

[loki13]

Insight into the deliberations at SCOTUS, Clarence Thomas version:

Well, Trump is for it, so I've got to be for it. Should be an easy case. Oh, what's this FedEx? It's a letter from that individual that I am mere acquaintances with, Harlan Crow! It says ... he hates tariffs. Huh.

I guess it's true. We only get the hard cases!

[Frank Drackman]

Mark my words, when and if Mayor Man-damn-he is asassinated it'll be by a fellow Moose-lum, not one of my Tribe.
Don't think "45/47/48?" is going to deport him back to Uganda, better to do like with Bin-laden, just make him wait, and every time he hears a Helicopter or a knock on the door he's thinking it might be "the time".

Frank

[John 4]

Right wing nuts and violent threats. Classic combo.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t forget deranged!

[loki13]

BTW, gotta love the Trump post-mortem on the election results.

It wasn't me! ...it was the shutdown.

Look, I do love the reality check. It might actually stop a subset of stupidity for now. But the only thing that will actually restore a little bit of sanity is for the GOP to remember that they are a party that has principles, and not just a subservient branch of Trump, Inc.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, such greats as the Late Dick Chaney, and I'll believe he's dead when I see the Stake through his Heart (such a bad guy he even took someone else's Heart)

Frank

[LawTalkingGuy]

The Republican Party hasn’t been a party with consistent ideological principles for at least 6 years.

[Commenter_XY]

Name a party with consistent ideological principles for at least 6 years. There are none.

[Zarniwoop]

But the only thing that will actually restore a little bit of sanity is for the GOP to remember that they are a party that has principles, and not just a subservient branch of Trump, Inc.

I admire your optimism, but hasn't that ship sailed out of harbor ... and been promptly torpedoed by a lurking MAGA U-boat?

[loki13]

Can't argue with the U-Boat analogy.

But I'd say that MAGA has declared that traditional Republican principles are drug smuggling narco-terrorists carrying fentanyl*, and blew them up international waters.

Trust them. They wouldn't lie.

*Well, cocaine. Which is affiliated with fentanyl.

[Martinned]

Like someone noted upthread, it might make the Trumpists think twice about the safety margin they build into their gerrymandering. Apart from that, it will simply convince them that they need to work even harder to shut down any semblance of independent media and and suggestion of safeguards against electoral interference.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, it would be nice if Republicans remembered they're supposed to be anti-abortion, not (like Trump) being pro-abortion in exchange for votes.

That was one of the old Republican principles you were referring to, wasn't it?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s the one for you, Cal.

[Josh R]

Trump still has a stranglehold on the GOP base. So, don't hold your breath.

One other note: Trump is only a drag on the GOP when he isn't on the ballot (likely because low-propensity voters show up when he is).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Poll workers were instructed to inform voters that they should vote for one candidate per race because there were a few double entries.

For instance, Curtis Sliwa (R-Spoiler) also ran on the "Protect Animals" line. Irene Estrada ran for mayor on the conservative line.

In a failure of truth in advertising, there was no "literally a communist" line. Mamdani also ran on the Working Families Line.

NY voters supported each ballot measure on the ballot in NYC except for one to change the timing of off-year elections. Mamdani voted "yes" for each proposal except for that one. It was also not final, since the state legislature has to change to law.

I read a somewhat convincing local op-ed against the change, noting it would negatively affect primaries, which are key in determining who wins in most local races.

[John F. Carr]

NYC and other one-party jurisdictions should have a jungle primary.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm somewhat open to the idea.

The NYC Republican Party can also try to run a candidate who has a chance to win. Republicans have won local races in multiple blue areas. NYC has significant conservative-leaning areas, especially on certain issues. A Republican, socially liberal or libertarian on certain issues, especially, should have a decent shot.

Or, they can keep on choosing the likes of Curtis Sliwa, who, granted, is less of an asshole than Andrew Cuomo.

[David Nieporent]

It's not really accurate to say that the GOP chose Sliwa; he was a vanity candidate who won the nomination by default because nobody else ran.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The GOP could have made a serious effort to find someone to run against him. They chose not to do so.

[Bob from Ohio]

Why waste money? There are not enough GOP leaning voters anymore in NYC to make any dent. Cleveland is the same.

Rudy was the last GOP NYC mayor in the lifetimes of any one here.

[Yes, that included past and future independent and then Dem candidate for president Bloomberg who just used the GOP label once for an easy route to the election.]

[David Nieporent]

The GOP could have made a serious effort to find someone to run against him. They chose not to do so.

George Santos is tanned, rested, and ready!

[Sarcastr0]

I agree - jungle primary is the prescription for the one-party jurisdiction problem, if what you seek is a diversity of viable candidates!

How to solve NYS's 'the two parties are basically the same' I dunno.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ghazala Hashmi wins Virginia lieutenant governor’s race, becoming first Muslim woman elected statewide

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/politics/ghazala-hashmi-virginia-lt-governor

Two women winning the governor and lieutenant race also violated the Veep rule.

[Malika la Maize]

I didn’t know she was Muslim, interesting.

[Martinned]

Not all Muslim women wear headscarves. (And, one imagines, not doing so makes a woman a lot more likely to get elected.)

[Frank Drackman]

and I heard Debbie Wasserman Schultz is also.

[loki13]

Oral arguments so far are great.

My favorite quote is probably Justice Jackson saying, "Some of us care about legislative history."

(If you're up on contemporary jurisprudence, this is a howler. I'm such a law nerd.)

[Bored Lawyer]

""Some of us care about legislative history.""

The sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said he would eat his hat if it was interpreted to permit affirmative action.
I look forward to Justice Jackson voting to hold affirmative action is illegal.

[loki13]

I think that you understand two things-

1. The actual debate about legislative history and its use in litigation.

2. The difference between comments from a legislator, and "legislative history" (committee reports, changes to the legislative language, etc.).

But sure, if saying that made you feel good and like you contributed to my law nerd joke, you do you.

I actually expect better from you? Shame on me, I guess.

[loki13]

Law nerd followup-

There was a bit of a fight between Kavanaugh (we don't do legislative history and also that's not in Algonquin) and Jackson (legislative history may not be in vogue, and also that's not what Algonquin says).

For those of you who don't follow this-

Scalia started the fight against legislative history. For the most part, he won the fight at SCOTUS and, to a more limited but still substantial extent, in the CoAs.

I would say that the battle is still on-going in most states, and good litigators know that you argue the text, but you also put in the legislative history when it is definitive and helps (especially when the text is ambiguous).

[Bored Lawyer]

1. You quoted Jackson as saying she cares about legislative history. Which was said in the context of a Supreme Court argument. That's litigation. Her clear import is that such might sway her interpretation of a statute. That's her position, not mine.

2. The quote was by Senator Hubert Humphrey, the lead sponsor of the Civil Rights Act. Which was widely relied on by others in Congress. It's quite clear that the law was sold one way and been interpreted a different way by the courts.

[loki13]

Uh huh. Bye.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus, BL, you suck.

Reduce an argument to a bare assertion, take a statement from 60 years ago and flatten that down to a bare assertion, and think that's an argument? You reduced both your facts into bumper sticker bullshit. That's not how the law's done and you know it.

I sure hope you're transactional, or retired.

[David Nieporent]

I would add that BL is misrepresenting said "history." Humphrey said that he'd eat the text of the bill (not his hat — but that's not the misrepresentation I refer to) if it was interpreted to require quotas. Not "permit affirmative action."

[Bored Lawyer]

To allay these rational fears, the Senate floor manager of the bill, Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, explicitly stated that the bill forbade quotas in any form in favor or any group. Humphrey declared that the bill “would prohibit preferential treatment for any particular group” and added: “Do you want a society that is nothing but an endless power struggle among organized groups?” Humphrey asked. “Do you want a society where there is no place for the individual? I don’t.” He then famously quipped: “I will eat my hat if this leads to racial quotas.”

https://ifamnews.com/en/it-is-time-for-senator-humphrey-to-eat-his-hat

While Humphrey did not use the term "affirmative action" in so many words, he made it clear that he was against preferential treatment. Which is what affirmative action is. [Spare me the BS apologetics that it's something else.]

[Moderation4ever]

I wonder if all the gerrymandering that has and will likely continue will convince the American people that we need fair redistricting. Redistricting for the people and not for the politicians.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Will be interesting to see how good GOP mapmakers are, especially in Texas and whether they manage to avoid a dummymander. If they don’t, (and assuming their inevitable “it was all fraud” claims fizzle), they might be on board with some light reforms simply to save them from themselves.

[John F. Carr]

Can you propose text of a constitutional amendment that the courts would be willing and able to enforce?

[Moderation4ever]

I think the most important part is that the drawing of Federal, state, and local districts must be completely transparent. How about this as a first draft.

"State legislature must draw new Congressional districts every ten years. The legislative districts can be challenged but once all challenges are resolved the new districts must stand until the start of the next ten year period. The process of redrawing the districts must be completely transparent to the public. This includes the publics right to see any contracts, agreements, work products, and any communications, written or electronic, with any outside party assisting the state legislatures in drawing districts."

This is of course in l a layman's tongue and would need to be turned to legal language.

[John F. Carr]

That's going to be hard to enforce. I remember a town clerk or manager mentioning that half of the people who were supposed to have town-managed email accounts hadn't activated them. They preferred to use their personal email accounts which were harder to get under the public records act.

That's also not going to help much. As long as partisan gerrymandering is allowed it can be out in the open like it is this year. The difference is the party in power after each census wins for 10 years with no chance to redraw districts more or less fairly after a change of power.

[ducksalad]

How about this? Requires some modern technical vocabulary:

1. Each state will be divided into geographical congressional districts, each of which elects a single representative to the House of Representatives.
2. The federal census will divide each state into geographical census districts, none of which contains more than one thousand people.
3. After each census, the boundaries of the congressional districts shall be determined by a public, mathematical algorithm, specified by federal law, that combines the census districts into congressional districts differing in population by no more than two percent. The sole inputs to the algorithm will be the locations of census districts, the populations of the census districts, and a random seed. The algorithm must lead deterministically and with no additional human input to a single map of districts. The algorithm may not, directly or indirectly, take into account election results, partisan preferences, or any class protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to this constitution.
4. The algorithm used after each census must have been enacted into law prior to the start of the census.

[ducksalad]

Oops forgot the most important clause:

5. The boundaries of congressional districts may only be determined by the algorithm described in Section 3, and only once per census.

[bernard11]

On what would the algorithm be based? What would be its objective function?

Could a congressional district consist of an archipelago of census districts, or must they all be contiguous?

[ducksalad]

Congress could debate the details. One assumes contiguous except for islands and such would be a requirement, but there are lots of different technical ways to define compactness.

Some simple algorithm that started with a set of seed precincts and then added random adjacent precincts one at a time would guarantee contiguity and tend generally but not rigorously toward compactness. That would be good enough for me, and I have a feeling that the public would trust in simple but suboptimal over complicated and perfect.

I don't even think sub-optimal compactness is what really disturbs people, it's the sense that someone is trying to engineer the result and the odd shapes are just the evidence of manipulation. But if your ideology includes a deeply held belief that minimizing the maximum aspect ratio is at the core of what makes democracy legitimate, you could write your congressmen and push for it.

[bernard11]

But we still don't have a definition of what would constitute an ideal set of districts.

What are we trying to accomplish?

[John F. Carr]

You have a couple unrelated policy decisions in there.

1. No multi-member districts. I think multi-member districts in densely populated areas would be an improvement.

2. Districts should not be based on shared values. After the next election people way out in the middle of nowhere California will be represented by urban Democrats.

Congress gets a lot of control over gerrymandering. If I'm lobbying for the Evil Party, I can offer Congress an algorithm that will favor my party without any prohibited discrimination. In some states it is taboo to name a city in a law. Instead the legislature refers to a city with at least 45,000 but not more than 50,000 population as of the 2020 census. And there is only one of those. Let's run with that. If a census tract is within a particular bounding box, it should be packed with smaller districts nearby.

Massachusetts prohibits districts from crossing town and county lines unless necessary. The Supreme Judicial Court decided it would not enforce this clause. Giving teeth to compactness rules would be a start.

The most blatant violation of the Massachusetts rule was unnecessarily moving one precinct into the next town's district beause a particular representative's girlfriend lived in that precinct. He wanted to be able to move in with her without leaving his district.

[ducksalad]

Well, it was just a suggestion.

Your shared values thing points up a fundamental issue: When people say they want competitive districts that is equivalent to saying they want maximize the number of voters who cast a losing vote. And it's more or less the opposite of shared values. Doesn't sound so appealing when you say it that way.

When people say they want shared values, and if we admit that values tend to map to parties, then that's equivalent to maximizing packing into nearly single party districts. That doesn't sound so nice either.

That's why I'd prefer an algorithm that excludes party, race, religion, etc and is strictly and only about body count.

[Frank Drackman]

Biggest "Gerrymander" is going to be the 2027 Census that adds Representatives (and Electrical Votes) to "Red" and "Purple" (Are Florida and Ohio really "Purple" anymore??) States
"What 2027 Census??" You ask
The one 45/47/48? is going to authorize in 2027.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

The Wit and Wonder bob From Ohio loves So
much

[Bob from Ohio]

Frank hits and misses, true. You just miss.

[Bunny495]

Problem is the lack of a consensus on the definition of "fair redistricting". The dem's problem is their voters tend to cluster together in small spaces while the pubs tend to be more spread out. The result is a normal districting results in small compact districts where the dems often win with a super majority or even more lopsided wins. On the other hand the pubs often win by less than 55% so they don't waste votes like the dems do.

Is it fair to rely on the principal of districting on the basis of a normal shaped polygon with the fewest number of sides or should a fair district (which would favor one side) something like my previous district in Florida which stretched over 200 miles East to West from Jacksonville to Tallahassee but at places where it only included I-10 was less than a mile from North to South.

Historically CA has provided more pub votes electing a prez than any other state (though sometimes TX sneaks a win but is always a solid second place) yet pub always get the short end of the stick in congressional representatives. It might be fairer to simply elect representatives at large from a state wide vote as opposed to having districts for House members. For lots of reasons that will never happen.

Bottom line is I don't see a good realistic solution.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I wish some of our laboratories of democracy would experiment with some proportional representation systems for their own legislatures.

[Zarniwoop]

Agreed - here in WI, we've had (R) majorities (and I believe sometimes supermajorities) in the state Leg when (D) gets over 50% of the actual vote statewide. IIRC (no source at my fingertips) there was an estimate that (D) would need something like 55-60% of the vote to get a bare majority in the state Leg. There are blue states (MA, MD) that I believe are just as bad.

None of these scenarios is democracy-promoting.

Whereas proportional representation would mean that every voter's vote counts, even if you live in a deep-blue city or a MAGA-red rural setting. And if the Green party got 5% of the vote in CA, they might actually get a seat in the House!

The problem? Entrenched politicians with power to engage in self-preservation > constituents - on both sides. CA won't go for it, and neither will TX.

[DDHarriman]

The election of a man that called for the murder of his rivals children and for shooting him twice in the head is one of the biggest political scandals of our generation
A message to everyone that Democrats are moving beyond lawfare and preparing to kill you and your kids

https://x.com/Timcast/status/1986056644048883928

Welcome to what I've been saying for years, Timcast. Historically speaking, the Left has always had a demonic bloodlust. Always. They're murderous. The data say, what the data say. QED. *takes a bow*. You're welcome.

[Malika la Maize]

Imagine how unpopular Trump must be for this to happen!

[DDHarriman]

My bad, I forgot, it was my support for Trump that drives you into a murderous bloodlust after my kids.

Sorry, I'll support the Left now. Please stop murdering White conservative children.

Too each, according to their need (as decided by an elite few whom are exempt). From each, according to their ability (as forced by a bloody sword or military style weapon of war)

See? I'm the perfect liberal now. BELEIVE WHAT I BELIEVE OR I WILL MURDER YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN! Tada!

[Malika la Maize]

No one thinks you have kids, Lex!

(Hey, Bri Bri, how’s that whole Harriman isn’t Lex thing working out for you?)

[DDHarriman]

Thankfully, that will keep them safe from Leftist murderers and homosexuals and kid-transing demons

[loki13]

(looks at polls)

Doesn't take much imagination.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, everything is Trump's fault. Democrats have no moral agency.

You know what we do with people like that? If they are two years old, we put them in a corner and let them cry it out. If they are adult-age, we lock them up in a mental institution.

[Martinned]

Blame the American electoral system for giving voters a choice between (a maximum of) two candidates.

[Malika la Maize]

I condemned Jones here long ago. This is in contrast to MAGAns like you who didn’t condemn Trump when he joked about Montana’s governor assaulting someone, the near lethal attack on Paul Pelosi, etc.,

My point is how unpopular must Trump be that so many Virginians took a look at what Jones said and went, “well, I still have to send a message to Trump’s stooge?”

Ignore this at your political peril, Armchair (I’m betting Youngkin got the message).

[DDHarriman]

DO WHAT WE SAY OR WE WILL MURDER YOUR CHILDREN.

Totes not fascist guys. It's the Paradox of Fascism, in order to protect against fascism, you have to be fascist!

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’s not what fascism is.

[Malika la Maize]

The guy who used to talk about gassing Democrats of course can’t think about this any other way.

[David Nieporent]

I hate that MAGA are making me defend Jay Jones, who is gross and should have dropped out, but they're lying about what he said. He did not threaten to kill anyone's kids.

[DDHarriman]

What did he threaten to do, DN?

[Bob from Ohio]

"making me"

LOL You defend democrats every day here.

[David Nieporent]

You lie about them every day here.

[loki13]

We have to wait for the questions for the appellees/respondents ... but OMG this has been a terrible argument for the DOJ based on the tenor of the questions and the identity of the questioners.

Roberts and Gorsuch hammering on non-delegation. Barrett hammering on the text. Gorsuch, in fact, went SO HARD.

OTOH, Kavanaugh? Tried to find a life preserver (and it was hard).

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean this is the perfect case for SCOTUS to reverse Trump on it has:

1. Opportunities to advance conservative constitutional theories that have long term implications for other areas (and to beat up on Congress which they love)

2. Just a general textualist issue that they love

3. Opportunity for them (especially Roberts) to go: SEE we aren’t Trump’s lackeys we ruled against him in a major case!

4. Stakes for their material interests: unlike other areas, tariffs affect their material interests directly in terms of prices of the goods they want and indirectly on the how tariffs affect their investments + the general economy.

[DDHarriman]

Data shows LGBT identification dropping after a massive spike since Trump's election.

THeY R b0rN ThAt wAy

[Martinned]

What part of "identification" do you not understand? You have successfully bullied LGBT Americans into hiding their sexual orientation. Why would you be happy about that?

[apedad]

Does this mean there are actually less LGBT folks self-identifying?

Or the Trump govt is simply not counting them?

Census Bureau under Trump seeks permission to delete questions about gender identity: https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-gender-identity-census-1e3d9a89c757091ef4a29700edabbd51

[DDHarriman]

So, the way you reason about the temporary massive spike in LGBT identification and subsequent descent is to think they weren't being counted before the spike, and not being counted after the spike, and the LGBT population has always been 30%, just no one was being counted for all of human history?

I bet you also think we've always had this epidemic of aspie's, autists, and other retards and they just weren't being counted, and therefore unseen, for all of human history up until the 1970s.

[Malika la Maize]

When there’s an environment more friendly to a usually oppressed group they’re more likely to identify as such? Yeah, that’s pretty crazy!

[DDHarriman]

Now explain the entirety of human history before 1993.

To believe what you believe, you must also believe that throughout history there has always been 30% LGBT identification, and in every culture since the dawn of writing, it was being oppressed because literally every human culture throughout human history thought it was to disgusting to document.

The Narrative. Nothing but The Narrative. Common sense and reason need to apply.

[Malika la Maize]

I have to believe gays were oppressed prior to 1990?

Not a hard ask, ya nut.

[DDHarriman]

And do you think that oppression caused 90% of the homosexuals in every culture throughout all of human history to never identify as gay?

I mean how is this not obvious. Do Leftists not have human brains, but some other demon seed or something?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s Lex/Chuck so of course no citation (how’s that working out Bri Bri? Got any other groypers you must stan for?).

[DDHarriman]

https://x.com/epkaufm/status/1978074195767480659

Idiot. Why aren't you celebrating less mentally ill people? Is it because you're afraid they'll become conservative and you'll get that rising bloodlust?

[Malika la Maize]

Is this about Jenner?

[David Nieporent]

A day late and a dollar short, as always. As others pointed out, Kaufman was relying on data about self-identification as "non binary," which is different than trans (let alone LGB).

[David Nieporent]

Data shows LGBT identification dropping after a massive spike since Trump's election.

No, it doesn't. It does show a drop in T, but not LGB.

[DDHarriman]

So it's the T's that weren't born that way. But all the others were. Right?

[Michael P]

Is your argument that LGB went up by at least as much as T went down, or is addition too tricky for you?

[Martinned]

About time:

The International Criminal Court is ditching Microsoft software for an open source alternative

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is looking to replace its internal work environments to move away from US-made software in fear of retaliation from the US administration.

The Microsoft software currently used in the Hague-based ICC is likely to be replaced with Open Desk, a German collaboration software alternative which is open source, meaning developers have chosen to release the source code - opening it up to scrutiny and often meaning that bugs and vulnerabilities are picked up quickly by the community.

The move protects the ICC from further targeted sanctions by the US government for ‘transgressions against the United States and Israel’ - in which judges and prosecutors for the court have been threatened with travel bans and asset freezes.

https://www.techradar.com/pro/the-international-criminal-court-is-ditching-microsoft-software-for-an-open-source-alternative

More international organisations and states should follow suit. We should not allow ourselves to be dependent on the authoritarian regime in Washington.

[Mr. Bumble]

"We should not allow ourselves to be dependent on the authoritarian regime in Washington."
We'll remember that when the Russian's come for you.

[Bob from Ohio]

Maybe we should swap a Russian withdraw from Ukraine for ceding Holland to them?

We know from 1940 and Bosnia that the Dutch military won't resist.

[Martinned2]

Sure, mention Bosnia. Where was the US Air Force back then? Weren't they supposed to provide air support? I guess even a Democratic administration can't be relied upon to keep its promises.

[Bob from Ohio]

Don't blame the US for Dutch cowardice.

No US [or British for that matter] commander would have just stood there and done nothing. Trained disciplined soldiers can do a lot against militias, even though outnumbered, especially when the militiamen are mainly just shooting civilians.

You have an air force. Why did you commit troops without air support?

[Martinned2]

When the Russians come for us I fully expect the US Regime to be supporting them.

[loki13]

My preview the other day was incorrect. I said that the actual history behind Yosheda wouldn't matter.

It's already come up a few times (Barrett question to SG, Katyal answer).

[loki13]

Favorite law nerd question (paraphrased)-

Alito to Katyal: I bet you never thought your legacy as an advocate in constitutional matters would be as the man who revived the non-delegation argument.

I laughed.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Cardozo for the win.

[David Nieporent]

I thought Katyal was a bit humorless in response to that.

[loki13]

I agree ... but I mean, Alito did hit him where it probably hurt the most. 🙂

(Katyal had been really careful to try and thread the non-delegation needle as much as possible, constantly saying that you can just use the statutory text, but I think he was effectively pushed on this. I also think that this case illustrates some of the MQD differences between the Barrett approach and the Gorsuch approach, and, for that matter, the whole "MQD is kinda sorta a part of non-delegation.")

[M L]

So. The most famous Democrat right now is an actual Muslim socialist. Is that true?

On the other side, we have Trump who is slightly to the right, or maybe slightly to the left actually, of a 1996 Bill Clinton.

Oh, and being a 1996 Bill Clinton is now considered Nazism and fascism by around 20% of the country, who incidentally have descended into a deeply deranged murderous frenzy, and just got done celebrating a 31 year old father being shot and killed for having mainstream conservative Christian views.

The NYC election occurs as NYC is now 50% immigrant households, with the financial and political scheme to import as many poor migrants as possible continuing to yield the intended results of raising rents and prices, depressing wages, and creating coalitions of votes for more socialism and welfare, against the American center.

Meanwhile, Democrats have long gerrymandered much harder than Republicans, but are now turning it up to 11, claiming that Republicans' move to gerrymander just a slight bit more (but still not as much as Democrats were already doing) was an "attack on Democracy." Every accusation is an admission of course.

Interesting times! Happy Wednesday.

[ReaderY]

Did Bill Clinton assert a power to set tariff rates at will? To purchase and modify government buildings and aircraft using private donations without the consent of Congress? To send federal troops into cities without a request from state governors?

Sure, he might be more liberal tha Clinton on a special-interest issue or two. But by that standard there were issues where Hitler was more liberal than previous governments. Animal welfare laws were strengthened under his watch.

[Bunny495]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell who is a Welfare Queen driving a Caddy

[Sarcastr0]

1. Why does Muslim matter?
2. Bernie Sanders is a socialist; good luck redbaiting this horse that's been long out of the barn.

a deeply deranged murderous frenzy, and just got done celebrating a 31 year old father being shot and killed
The right is massively brain-cooked. Everyone they don't like is a crazy murderer or a pedophile or both at this point.

The NYC election occurs as NYC is now 50% immigrant households
I saw this bit of bigotry come from a Jack Posobiec tweet. You're still a fan of his...milieu, I take it?

[David Nieporent]

The NYC election occurs as NYC is now 50% immigrant households

It's a lie, anyway, or at least a careful misrepresentation. That's the figure where at least one member of the household is foreign born.

[M L]

Yes, that's the figure I am referring to. If we included 2nd gen, who knows how high the number would be, presumably much higher.

[Sarcastr0]

Why does that matter? If they're citizens they're as much American as any other American.
If they're not, they can't vote.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I don’t mind people abstaining from alcohol because it ruined their lives (pussies) but I do have a problem with Mormons and Muslims that abstain because of religious beliefs. I don’t think we should allow more Muslims and Mormons into the country because an America without drinking isn’t an America I want to live in!

[bernard11]

What about evangelical Christians who don't drink for religious reasons?

[Ska]

My grandmother was an immigrant. Not exactly a weird phenomenon in NYC. If anything I'm the rarity here - 3rd generation New Yorker.

[Bob from Ohio]

" That's the figure where at least one member of the household is foreign born."

Immigrant household still fits.

The Hart–Celler Act continues to pay dividends to Dems.

[Malika la Maize]

MAGA Bingo!

Muslim! Replacement! Kirk! Etc.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Allahu Akbar, motherfucker!!!!!!!!

[David Nieporent]

That's pretty much all as true as your analysis of the birthright citizenship issue.

[M L]

Alex Soros celebrates his version of the American Dream! I.e., open borders and socialism.

https://x.com/AlexanderSoros/status/1985906188584960502

[John F. Carr]

Earlier this year most public defenders in Massachusetts went on strike for higher pay. Today they are asking the state Supreme Court to order a pay raise. Pay is set by statute and the constitution prohibits spending public funds without apprioriation. In my opinion, the attorneys have no constitutional right to any particular rate of pay. Criminal defendants' rights can be preserved by dismissing charges if no attorney is willing to work for the statutory rate. When courts release too many violent criminals or people wearing red hats, voters can ask the legislature for relief.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/11/04/metro/massachusetts-court-defense-atotrneys-pay-rates/

[santamonica811]

John, any link that's not behind a paywall?

[John F. Carr]

Does this work?

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-boston-globe/20251105/281745570640840

A followup story said justices were skeptical, with one saying the court might declare the pay rate unconstitutionally low without ordering any specific relief.

[santamonica811]

Yes, I could read the second link. Interesting. The current pay is shockingly low, so I'm not surprised that the lawyers are, essentially, going on strike. (Although, if I'm reading it correctly, it's less dramatic than that. Since they are independent contractors; they are merely saying, "Nope, we're choosing to not take on this new case you're offering to us, as is our right, due to the low pay you're offering." They are not saying that they will refuse to continue to represent their existing clients, correct?)

[John F. Carr]

I believe attorneys may not withdraw from a criminal case without judicial approval. They are refusing to take on new work.

[ReaderY]

The recent oral argument suggests a pattern in the Supreme Court’s approach to major chalenges to Presidential assertions of power. They will find against the Presidet, but on grounds that avoid the courts determining that the President is lying. This will lead them towards a more sweeping ruling that Congress didn’t deegate the power at all, without addressing the fact-specific question f whether the President or the situation met Congressional standards for delegation.

In the tarriff case, they seem to be focusing on whether Congress deegated any tarriff power at all in the IEEPA and not on whether current conditions represent an emergency.

In the National Guard case, they seem to be focusing on an interpretation of “regular forces” as representing the reguar forces of the US miitary (not civil police). Together with the Posse Comitatus Act, this would completely eliminate the power to call in the nationa guard to enforce federal law, avoiding any need to evaluate the truth of Trump’s claims that civilian law enforcement has been overwhelmed.

[David Nieporent]

In the tarriff case, they seem to be focusing on whether Congress deegated any tarriff power at all in the IEEPA and not on whether current conditions represent an emergency.

That issue did not arise at all, which I found interesting.

[Bob from Ohio]

A SCOTUS ruling against Trump actually helps the GOP politically.

Discuss.

[Sarcastr0]

This is cope.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He’d be right in 2018. Wrong in 2026.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This is cope."

Your comment is cope.

Tariffs are causing inflation, no? Inflation hurt the GOP yesterday. So reducing tariffs perhaps helps them next year.

Man, even my stalker responded on substance. Unemployment getting to you?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don’t think that’s why the GOP had a bad night. Or at least not the main reason.

[Sarcastr0]

If it wasn't cope, you'd have brought it up before the oral argument shitshow for the government.

It's cope.

No one here knows how the politics work out. You just hope.

[santamonica811]

But I do think Bob's right. Tariffs are *really* bad for Trump (and therefore, for the GOP), politically. If the Sup. Ct strikes them down, Trump will take a short-term hit, sure. But long-term, our economy will benefit, which will help Trump, will help Republicans, and will therefore hurt Democrats politically.

This is obviously speculation. But I think it's a reasonable prediction.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm the worst at political predicting.

But the odds that the economy continues to stay up despite the tariffs are not zero. Neither are the odds the economy does have something dire happen, but the American People don't tie the causality to the tariffs.

Meanwhile, the odds Trump dodges the stink of a failed authoritarian when the Court rule against his flagship policy are not 100%.

Or Trump tries to defy the Supreme Court. Then we'd be in the Cool Zone (historian-speak for a time that's cool to study, not to live through)

[Kazinski]

I think what will happen is they will try to codify a more coherent tariff policy and incorporate most of the bilateral accords via a reconciliation bill.

I don't think there will be an appetite for just rolling everything back to February, in fact if the Supreme Court rules against Trump there are probably now superseded tariffs rolling back to the Clinton administration invalidated.

[bernard11]

I don't think there will be an appetite for just rolling everything back to February,

I think there will be. Do you think the Congressional GOP will be eager to restore tariffs, after SCOTUS has saved them from Trump's idiocy?

[John F. Carr]

Decades ago, when Governor Romney was amassing his binders full of women, the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts legislature decided not to cut spending in response to a decline in revenue. The governor would carry out his statutory duty to balance the budget and spending cuts wouldn't be Democrats' fault.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Healey is looking at 3C cuts as well...

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think this would be correct about the GOP in 2018. I’m not so sure in 2025-2026. Trump 2 is much more personalist than Trump 1. And Trump deeply believes in tariffs and deeply believes he should be allowed to do whatever he wants. And a lot of republicans believe that now too, or at least pretend to publicly. So the benefit the GOP could get by being from the effects of an unpopular policy without taking a stance will be be immediately be undercut by whatever Trump’s likely apoplectic reaction will be. And if they get on board with the leader’s psychotic break…they might squander the benefits a ruling would otherwise confer.

[Bob from Ohio]

"leader’s psychotic break"

People are used to Trump eruptions I think. Could be wrong.

If the policy goes away, I think its a political benefit. But I'm not sure.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“People are used to Trump eruptions I think.”

Sure, but this is probably the one policy idea he truly believes in more than any other so his fury may be different. It really depends on the extent of his grip on the party.

[Sarcastr0]

If the policy goes away, I think its a political benefit.

Quite an admission!

[Malika la Maize]

Bob admits Trump has “eruptions?” These elections were big!

[wvattorney13]

I think you'll have 90% of elected GOP Congressman who will be silently (mostly) happy about the development. Indeed, that will help Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett get on board. They have never supported tariffs anyways but have went along with it because the party leader supports them.

Once the Court strikes them down, they will shrug their shoulders and say we tried but what can we do?

I think it helps Trump politically. He can point to how the swamp won't let him keep the foreigners in line as a reason the economy tanks. If the economy improves that shows how awesome he is despite the swamp getting in his way.

[ducksalad]

Commendations and thanks are in order.

It's now past 12 noon EST the day after an election. As far as I can tell, none of the losers, and not even the president, are claiming the election was stolen. Even the commenters here are staying off it. This despite significant differences between polls and final outcomes.

No really, thanks.

[John 4]

Oh I’m sure it won’t be long. It is surprising though.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Indeed. Let’s just hope they don’t decide that the obvious next step is simply trying to denaturalize and deport citizens who vote or run against them,
including Mamdani.

[Moderation4ever]

That probably would not be the case if any of the elections were close. What I saw were some very large differences and it harder to make the case for fraud when the number are so lopsided.

[apedad]

" . . . not even the president, are claiming the election was stolen."

That's because Trump wasn't on the ballot.

He DOESN'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK about anyone else so it didn't matter who won or lost.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I think he campaigned for them while sitting on the toilet dropping a deuce.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He did attack the CA districting proposition:

Both Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber are pushing back against President Donald Trump’s claims that voting in the statewide special election is “rigged."

https://www.desertsun.com/live-story/news/nation/california/2025/11/04/california-election-day-2025-live-prop-50-redistricting-updates/86906084007/

[ducksalad]

I missed that one. Guess it was too much to expect from him.

At least the actual candidates are behaving.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two local losers lit a cherry bomb in a locker in a then-empty Harvard building. They shouldn't have done it -- but they didn't injure anyone and the building was open on Monday.

The appropriate sanction is 6 weekends raking leaves for Harvard -- or the Commonwealth if Harvard doesn't want them. Or clearing brush for DCR.

I know how it's a Federal Offense, but the same weekend we had a missing 30-year-old woman found murdered in her vehicle. A wee bit more serious?

[DDHarriman]

If you want to understand why Trump must purge the government bureaucracy, look no further than the fact that government-worker filled northern Virginia voted MORE for Jay "I want to kill my opponent's children in front of their mother" Jones got higher % of the vote than Harris.

https://x.com/barnes_law/status/1985927072410452220

Woah. More evidence of Democrat/Sarcastr0/govie bloodlust.

Want to win a Democrat election in a region filled with federal bureaucrats? Promise to mass murder conservative families and children.

That's why the Democrats always gaslight and proclaim they are on the Right Side of History. Because on the Left Side of History it's nothing but mass murder, poverty, misery (except for elites, of course).

[David Nieporent]

Once again, Jones didn't say he wanted to kill the children.

[DDHarriman]

What was it that he said he wanted to do?

[David Nieporent]

What was it that he said he wanted to do?

The only thing he said that he wanted to do was piss on the graves of some of his political adversaries.

The part that was controversial was that he hoped their kids would die. Not that he wanted to or intended to do the killing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Evil and lazy? Wow.

[Bob from Ohio]

DN was "made" to defend Jones by bad, bad MAGA. No agency!

[David Nieporent]

Once again, I understand that truth doesn't matter to you.

[Malika la Maize]

Remember, under his previous handles this guy talked about gassing people (Democrats, Jews, etc.) regularly.

[Martinned2]

Since we were talking about the exaggerated titulature Americans use for their betters, here's another example. Last night's guest on Stephen Colbert was "First Lady Michelle Obama". She hasn't been the first lady for 8.5 years! And it's not even a job she was elected to!

https://www.cbs.com/shows/video/9tM6fGRZXhzhUHJnbiK7MIKsb1_dDncJ/

[Bob from Ohio]

It's not even a job!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

She’ll always be my First Woman! Melania is the First Whore.

[loki13]

Woah. Just finished the oral arguments. Quick thoughts-

Going into the case, I thought that the Trump administration was more likely to lose than to win. Why? On the legal merits (from both conservative and liberal POVs), the case was a stinker. But ... you know, it's this SCOTUS.

Now? Exact same opinion as I had. More likely the Trump administration loses than it wins.

If I had to guess based on the questions, here's where I would place the Justices-

Definite "Hell No, You Can't Do That": Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan
Almost Definite: Barrett, Gorsuch
Probably: Roberts

Definite "Let Trump Cook, Who Needs a Congress?": Kavanaugh, Alito
Probably: Thomas

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Kavanaugh separate opinion that is prime Kavanaugh is quite possible. He will underline how reasonable he is and how he respects each side. "Like me, please."

[loki13]

Ever since the Kavanaugh Stop opinion (and they should forever be called Kavanaugh Stops) ... we should all remember what happens when neediness is elevated.

Elevates being out-of-touch into an art form.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I have some serious disagreements with the 5-4 crew, but I think their analysis of Kavanaugh as a frat bro conservative who is out of his depth and isolated among the conservative nerds is probably correct.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush, a fellow frat boy, is the individual that ordered Collins to vote for him and get him over the finish line after Trump wanted to pull his nomination. Trump didn’t like the frat boy stuff at his hearing. Btw, Cheney wasn’t the one that called Collins because Cheney wasn’t that important of a VP no matter what you read yesterday.

[wvattorney13]

I have a hard time believing that. What power did Bush or Cheney have over Collins? She could have told him to get lost and hung up the phone on him.

[Kazinski]

He seems to be Blackman's non-Thomas favorite.

But he is definitely not isolated.

[loki13]

If (and it's a big if) I am correct, the most interesting question to me is how the majority is cobbled together, who gets the opinion, and the primary basis for the opinion.

Barrett was very attuned to the text, as well as the paucity of the support for the SG's opinion. Barrett also favors a textualist approach to MQ doctrine.

Gorsuch hammered non-delegation (and Roberts raised it early). There's also a SOP issue with that.

No one seemed that interested in looking at any issues re: pretext or second-guessing the executive, although there was a brief colloquy about whether the SG's theory meant that these questions were unreviewable or reviewed under a highly deferential standard that came about when the SG cornered himself by inadvertently acknowledging that his theory would let the Executive do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and therefore nothing could ever be reviewable as being outside the scope of "foreign facing" and therefore the President could just announce any issue was foreign facing and do whatever the heck he wanted.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Liberals led by Kagan are probably going to push hard for a statutory resolution to avoid a broad non-delegation ruling, even if they have to concede on MQD. While its a constitutionally informed rule of statutory construction its still not a hard constitutional limit on Congress’s ability to set up the government. Or maybe there is some kind of narrow non-delegation doctrine opinion Roberts can get 5 votes on. If Gorsuch (or possibly Barrett or Thomas) has the assignment for that sitting and we’re sure Alito and Kav wants to uphold presidential tariff power, it’s going to be a plurality opinion. Because I don’t think they can write narrowly enough on this topic to get liberals to sign on. Roberts probably can because he has no problem making shit up to get 5 votes.

[David Nieporent]

SCOTUS doesn't need five votes for a particular theory; only five votes against Trump. I predict (as I mentioned above) that it's a fractured decision on MQD/non-delegation/Trump-is-batshit.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump will not be appointing people like Kavanaugh and ACB this term…I can’t believe Trump was tricked into appointing Bush’s right hand man in Kavanaugh and Cheney without a Dick in ACB!! Hilarious!!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes of course. But I think they generally want a majority opinion and they do try to get it, Roberts especially.

[wvattorney13]

I've got a 7 vote majority. Gorsuch has the opinion that the statute does not justify it joined by the Court. He reasons the MQD joined by Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. He writes for himself arguing non delegation joined in part by Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh concurs in a Kavanaugh way asking everyone to get along and how this is not a repudiation of Trump.

Thomas, joined by Alito, dissents arguing that due to an Act of 1714 in England, the executive has plenary power over tariffs as a part of foreign relations and this statute merely confirms that power.

[loki13]

By the way, while I know many people retreat to their own ideological holes on all issues, I will point out that this is one of those few BIGGEST EVAR cases where if you look at the filings (the amici etc.), you will see broad agreement on the legal principles and positions from across the ideological spectrum- in other words, conservatives and liberals almost unanimously opposed to the legal position staked out by Trump, as well as the prior determinations in the lower courts.

Again, this is never a perfect indicator (far from it) with SCOTUS, but the Administration's position has never been legally well supported.

[LawTalkingGuy]

California v. Texas was like that too. I think the only amici agreeing with Texas/DOJ were Blackman and Ilya Shapiro lol.

Relatedly, that case and the CFPB funding case, is why I am somewhat skeptical of a Gorsuch vote here. He joined the Alito dissents in that case that were both 1) incredibly stupid 2) in stark contrast to most of his supposedly rigid principles.

[loki13]

Look, I didn't think Gorsuch was a likely vote for his principles either. But something lit a fire under him and he was going hard after the SG.

If he ends up going the other way, it would be one of the largest mismatches between an oral argument and a final opinion I can remember.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’ll take your word for it. And I guess on reflection it’s harder to weasel out of his staunch non-delegation bona fides here. Plus as I mentioned elsewhere: there are real material interests at stake for the justices personally.

[loki13]

I'd add that Gorsuch's hypotheticals to the SG ... ESPECIALLY the ones involving a future administration that used these powers to tax people and do whatever for climate change ... showed exactly what he was thinking.

The SG admitted that yep, that would be fine. And I think that Gorsuch (unlike Alito and Kavanaugh) actually thinks, "Um, maybe that would be bad? If we allow this power to all Presidents, that means ... it could go to a President that I don't like, for reasons I don't like."

[Zarniwoop]

Indeed - every MAGA fanboi here should be asking themself "do I want Prez AOC to have this power? Should unlimited, arbitrary, on-a-presidential-whim tariffs (see: +10% on Canada because Trump was butthurt about a TV ad) be allowed if they're called a 'negotiating tactic' to pressure other countries into Prez AOC's climate goals?"

[loki13]

That's kind of the problem when you have people who think as fanbois, instead of thinking about the principles involved.

I don't want any President, Republican, Democrat, or Trumpist, to have this power. The reason is not just because I think Trump is particularly capricious, stupid, venal, and driven by whims that are both petty and destructive (although all of that is true) ...

It's that I wouldn't want that power for anyone, even if I could assume they were using it for "good." Because ... that's not how a system of law and good government works.

Yeah, I get it. It can suck to deal with roadblocks, and a separation of powers, and not getting everything you want immediately. But this is the entire reason we have a democracy, and not a monarchy- because we don't trust that the monarch will always be benvolent.

I almost feel like there's a quote about this ... you know, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others."

That's the issue. When you treat politics as merely a sport- when you root for politicians as you would a team, instead of understanding that politics is simply the means to accomplish policies ... you've completely lost the thread.

[Commenter_XY]

The link you provided last week was really helpful.

Does the MQD work the other way, meaning at SCOTUS? If they decide the tariffs are toast, there are trillions of dollars of commerce that get wiped out. Pragmatically, can the Court really do that, meaning undo trillions of dollars of leveraged deals worldwide? That is the practical effect of knocking out the tariffs. Nevermind the foreign policy impact.

Did the Founders ever intend SCOTUS to have that kind of power? I am not sure about that; it is looks, acts, and smells like a major question that SCOTUS cannot resolve.

[grb]

Could you flesh out your scenario a bit? As I see it, you wonder whether the Founders intended the Supreme Court to stop illegal actions by the president if doing so was - what? - inconvenient?

So is that your question? Is the legality or illegality of Trump's actions really not relevant? That said, please let me reassure you : Most of Trump's "leveraged deals worldwide" are puffed-up Nothings, they typically did zilch more than undo a small part of Trump's damage, and everyone - both overseas & domestic - would be happy to see the whole mess go away.

By the way, that includes Republicans as well. That's why the Senate recently voted against tariffs against Canada and Brazil with multiple GOPers crossing the aisle. Everyone knows this tariff business is cognitively-impaired lunacy.

[David Nieporent]

Removing tariffs does not "wipe out" any commerce at all.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I get it. It can suck to deal with roadblocks, and a separation of powers, and not getting everything you want immediately. But this is the entire reason we have a democracy, and not a monarchy- because we don't trust that the monarch will always be benvolent.

There's some political science about a democracy with President vs. Congress vs. Courts with a ton of veto points vs. parliaments where they work hard to avoid that consensus forcing function. The sense is that once a critical mass is willing to fuck with the veto points, democracies fail because they can't govern anymore, and the pressure builds till some new system replaces it.

We are by far the longest going democracy around.

[David Nieporent]

Look, I didn't think Gorsuch was a likely vote for his principles either. But something lit a fire under him and he was going hard after the SG.

I did smirk at how he managed to try to bring Indians into this one, too.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Those slaves holding dead white dudes with funny hairdoos are looking pretty prescient right now!!

[wvattorney13]

If Trump would have issued a tariff against gay Indians, he would be in deep trouble with Gorsuch.

[David Nieporent]

Someone on twitter commented (paraphrasing here) a week or two ago that — given the almost unanimous opposition to Trump among amici — that if he prevails here nobody should ever be allowed to file an amicus brief again, ever. It would reveal the absolute worthlessness of the whole endeavor.

[loki13]

I was going to say, "No big loss," but then I remembered the Lederman brief, and I was like ... Okay, some loss.

[Kazinski]

Even I didn't see the authorization in IEEPA they were claiming.

Definite loss for the Trump administration if it goes as expected.

But it could be a long term victory for conservatives on MQD and non-delegation.

What better case for a landmark decision cutting back executive power than a major slowdown to the Trump administration?

[wvattorney13]

Non-delegation is my view of the issue. Even if we assumed that Congress unambiguously delegated this power that seems unconstitutional.

Could Congress pass a law saying that the income tax rates, when there is a budget deficit, shall be determined by the President as he deems proper?

[Jmaie]

I’m not in the habit of listening to oral arguments, and I only caught part of this one. So question for those with more experience - I could pretty easily tell which justice was speaking, but I often couldn’t tell from what they were saying whether they were responding to the plaintiff’s attorney or the SG. Is that normal?

[loki13]

Not sure what you mean? It's cabinned by time-

So the first argument was the Justices questioning the SG.

The second argument was dividing into two parts- the longer one was the Justices questioning Katyal (counsel for companies) and the shorter was the Justices questioning the ... AG for Oregon, IIRC.

Finally, the SG presented a brief rebuttal, and there were no questions.

[Jmaie]

Thanks, that explains it. I heard some from the justices questioning the defense council and AG and assumed (incorrectly) that one was the SG. Thought it odd there didn't seem to be any controversy.

The last little bit, the SG seemed...grumpy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What they're saying: "Any Jewish person that votes for Zohran Mamdani, a proven and self professed JEW HATER, is a stupid person," Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday.

https://www.axios.com/2025/11/04/trump-zohran-mamdani-jewish-supporters-stupid

One poll suggested this is about 1/3.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/poll-finds-a-third-of-nyc-jews-voted-for-mamdani-while-cuomo-dominated-jewish-neighborhoods/

(3% voted for Sliwa)

Trump's record on Jews is somewhat mixed.

https://jewishdems.org/donald-trumps-antisemitic-record/

[hobie]

Quelle suprise. Another Jewish group documenting the raging antisemitism in MAGA

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Speaking at a morning press conference in Queens, the 34-year-old democratic socialist revealed an all-female transition team led by Elana Leopold [top de Blasio advisor, including during his 2013 mayoral transition] as executive director. It also includes co-chairs Maria Torres-Springer, the former first deputy mayor; Lina Khan, the former federal trade commission chair; the United Way’s president and CEO, Grace Bonilla; and the former deputy mayor for health and human services Melanie Hartzog.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/05/zohran-mamdani-transition-team

[Sarcastr0]

Zo has an ambitious agenda; hiring really good managers is gonna be vital else he runs into the buzz saw of NYC/NYS policy paralysis.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Zo "

Oh, a nickname. how cute.

I would suggest Koba.

[loki13]

In other news, the jury has started deliberating in the SANDWICH CASE!

Someone else wrote this, but I'm stealing it-

If the sandwich doesn't split, you must acquit!*

(The defense noted the .... discrepancy ... between the testimony that the sandwich exploding all over the officer in mustard and onion after being SPIKED at him POINT BLANK ... and the video showing the intact sandwich in a wrapper on the ground afterwards.)

[Bored Lawyer]

What is the "sandwich case?"

[Bob from Ohio]

A now former DOJ employee threw a sub that hit an ICE agent in DC a few months ago. Got arrested for assault on a federal officer.

[Armchair]

Sounds like it's an open and shut case of assault.

[not guilty]

As another commenter put it, assault with a deli weapon?

[grb]

Someone protesting ICE threw a sandwich (Subway, I think) at one of their thugs. Originally DOJ tried to press felony charges, but that resulted in a (dare I say it) "delicious" irony. Because, yes, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, but apparently you can't do so for throwing one. Having failed at the initial attempt, they came back with misdemeanor charges.

Which I admit is probably warranted. But even then, they couldn't pull it off without perjury. Kinda makes you wonder about all the charges when there's no video, doesn't it?

[Zarniwoop]

From Yahoo! News:

[Defense Attorney] Shroff said [during closing arguments] that the Border Patrol Officer Greg Lairmore gave “very questionable testimony” when he claimed that the sandwich "exploded all over" his chest and claimed he could smell the mustard and onions. A photo shows that the sandwich was still in its wrapper on the ground after it hit Lairmore in his bulletproof vest.

A sandwich, Shroff said, cannot be a weapon hurled with force anywhere near enough to justify federal charges, and a bulletproof vest, she said, “is definitely going to keep you safe from a sandwich thrown at you.”

Shroff also said the two “gag gifts” that Lairmore received — a plush sandwich and a patch featuring a cartoon of Dunn throwing the sandwich with the words “Felony Footlong” — showed that this was not a serious event in Lairmore’s life.

(emphasis added) Simple assault? Decent case for it.

But if I were on the jury, the photographic proof of perjury by the officer would merit acquittal ... and firing of the officer, who cannot be trusted to testify truthfully in any case if he'll lie about something this trivial.

[wvattorney13]

Par for the course for what passes for journalism these days; the article does not cite the statute nor tell the reader what evidence is required.

If it is obstruction or "physical harm" I agree with the defense. But throwing a sandwich at someone is a battery. I'm not sure what the charges are.

[Sarcastr0]

throwing a sandwich at someone is the kind of battery that if it’s charged nullification is immediately on the table.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If you were on a jury where white protestors were charged with throwing sandwiches at a little black girl trying to enter a segregated school, you'd nullify?

College students throwing sandwiches at speakers they disagree with is OK in your book?

[NvEric]

The continual push for the Strong Man rule grew yesterday with the fascist winners in New York City and Virginia. Beware of government growing ever darker as evil is ushered in again.

The voting process and voter roles are in question as bread and circuses assist in undemocratic ploys for "power." True power is with the People, when they're free, responsible, and faithful to true religion, and not one which advocates death to non-believers.

For anyone in the USA to proclaim they are a Muslim means they are at war with the USA.

[Malika la Maize]

What a joke of an American you are.

[Zarniwoop]

The continual push for the Strong Man rule grew yesterday with the fascist winners in New York City and Virginia.

Please elaborate why you think that results of a democratic election you don't personally like is a reason to overthrow our system of government and the U.S. Constitution, and replace it with an authoritarian dictator.

Or did you mean something else? If so, again please elaborate.

I'm not holding my breath on good-faith engagement here. So surprise me.

[John F. Carr]

The Scottish parliament doesn't want anybody to own more than 1,000 hectares of land. Before any transfer of a larger parcel could take effect, the Scottish government would have a chance to split it into smaller lots and give "community groups" a chance to buy those lots.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgr4d770znpo

[Malika la Maize]

NJ 2024:
Harris: 52 Trump: 46
NJ 2025:
Dem: 56 GOP: 43

VA 2024:
Harris: 52 Trump: 46
VA 2025:
Dem: 57 GOP: 43

I don’t get it, we had Trump’s wonderful policies in place but his party’s results got worse….

[Mr. Bumble]

Is it really that surprising that two blue states voted blue.
Not much different than a mid term election where the party in power traditionally loses seats.TDS is powerful.

[grb]

The real question is when the GOP politicians go into full survival-mode. They already know Trump will leave their party in wreckage, but the first timid show of independence is always so hard. Yet as the midterms approach, I expect any number of Republicans will a suddenly feel a spine hardening up the length of their backs.

Too late to avoid the bloodbath to be sure, and you can't really sympathize. Their cowardice allows Trump to reduce the country to wreckage as well.

[jb]

The Virginia House of Delegates results are probably the most telling (at least 13/100 seats flipped from R to D). You're right that some amount of this is expected response to almost any President, but the magnitude seems at least somewhat larger than I was expecting.

[DDHarriman]

Just promise to mass murder conservative kids and the Democrats will flock to the voting booths. You have your winning platform.

[grb]

Of course the real murderer is in the White House, blasting away at boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific as a stunt to entertain his MAGA base. We're told he has "cause", but who's dupe enough to believe that?

When he shipped a few hundred Venezuelans to a Central American gulag, we were told then they were all members of the Tren de Aragua gang. It only took a couple of days of reporting to show many weren't and the standard of "evidence" for all was nonexistent. Trump knows his MAGA base doesn't care if his stunts have any factual basis or truth. Whether kidnapping innocent people off the street or murdering them on the high seas, it's all entertainment to them. Innocent or not, they hoot & holler; cheer & cheer. To them, it's like the thrill of a pro-wrestling match. MAGA doesn't care it's all phony.

[santamonica811]

Or brag about violently sexually assaulting women, by grabbing them by the pussy, and Republicans will flock to the voting booths.

I'm not sure either side of the aisle is exactly covered in glory, according to your peculiar standard.

[Mr. Bumble]

Give it a rest. Were you upset about poopy pants groping women and girls at various event of swimming naked in front of a female Secret Service agent and blocking her request to be reassigned?

[DDHarriman]

I don't think saying (paraphrase) "hollywood starlets are so loose you can grab them by the pussy" is equivalent to (paraphrase) "I hate conservatives and if elected I will take state action to mass murder them and their children"

But hey, that's just me. I'm a human, not a Democrat.

[John F. Carr]

A man walked up behind Claudia Sheinbaum, put his arms around her, and got a handful of presidential tit.

Even in a country where there is a real risk of government officials being murdered by criminal gangs, she doesn't have a big security detail. She just walks down the street where anybody can cop a feel. I didn't read if the man who pulled the groper off her was part of her security detail. He did not act with the violence of the stereotypical American cop.

She said she will press charges, mainly to raise publicity about treatment of women in Mexico.

[DDHarriman]

Do you think the reason all these Blue districts were able to count all the ballots in one night and not weeks or months like in the last two federal elections is because they didn't need to cheat and find/print more votes?

[jb]

They didn't count them all in one night; the margins of victory were big enough that it was possible to call the election before all the ballots had been counted. In Virginia and California it's still possible all the ballots haven't been received yet since both states allow for ballots postmarked on or before election day to arrive later.

Usually the biggest delay in close elections is curing ballots, but that's usually a small fraction of the overall ballots so it only substantively matters when the margins are quite right.

[santamonica811]

In California, as usual, it will be 2+ weeks before final results will be announced. As you already mentioned; in a lopsided win, one can announce a winner quickly, and this is very different from giving a 'final' result.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you see anything wrong with taking week to count the election results?

[jb]

No. It allows for ballot curing, which means that people don't get disenfranchised for minor errors in the process.

Why do you think that speed of counting is more important than correctly reflecting the will of the electorate?

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure. Curing ballots like hanging chads.

[jb]

You can look up each state's process for ballot curing if you actually want to understand. Might be more helpful than a comparison to a defunct ballot type.

By analogy: would it be better if the SEC passed a rule saying that all companies have to file their earnings by midnight on the last day of the quarter, or is it better that they have a few weeks to actually do a good job and get the results right? There's tons of scenarios where we value accuracy over speed; I'm not sure why you think voting of all things should bias in the other direction.

[Mr. Bumble]

As reported by our European better Martinned.
In the Netherlands: No early voting, voter ID required, No mail in voting (with only very limited exceptions as it used to be here), only in person voting.
Thus nothing to cure and no two weeks to reach a final count.

[jb]

Yes, it is true that different countries have different models for their elections. In the US, the Constitution even allows different states to set the time, place and manner for these things!

[David Nieporent]

There are many reasons why one may cast a provisional ballot: If you show up and they say that your name isn't listed in the registration book; if you show up w/o proper ID in a place that requires it; if you show up and someone challenges your eligibility to vote; if you show up and they say, "But our records show you already voted." Etc.

In any of those instances, they will either need time to investigate or you will need time to cure. If you're in the military overseas, your ballot may arrive after election day.

[Moderation4ever]

You forgot to mention that you can vote by proxy in the Netherlands. So if you can not get to the polling station you can assign another to cast your vote. What do you think of including that here?

[David Nieporent]

No. As I said, it's entirely normal.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. I know it's a bad faith question, but on the off chance that there's someone here reading who doesn't know: the premise is a lie. All the ballots were not counted in one night. Neither here nor any other election (beyond some small town school board or something) has involved counting all ballots in one night. That's not the way it works. In every election, the results aren't certified for some time. When elections are "called" it's because the margin is clear enough that it's impossible for the other side to win, not because all ballots have actually been counted.

Although it's certainly interesting to see Voltage! argue that this election was in fact free of fraud.

[Zarniwoop]

Why can't every town, city, and metropolis in the U.S. get their votes counted and reported with 100% accuracy a mere 5 mins after midnight, like Dixville Notch VT (population in 2024 Presidential race: 6 voters, who split 3-3)?

What could possibly be different when there are millions of voters, with overseas ballots, absentee ballots, and early voting ballots, with both drop-offs and mail-ins? Are bad faith questions even a thing? Does deliberately stupid demagoguery exist? Unpossible!!1!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Dixville Notch, New Hampshire

[Zarniwoop]

You are totally correct, my brain cramp. Apologies.

Even as a person born in CT, school in MA I get them inexplicably mixed up sometimes!

The sarcasm and snark, however, remains.

[David Nieporent]

In AP US History in 10th grade, there were 13 people in our class so each one of us got assigned a colony to write a report on. Mine was New Hampshire, so I've never gotten them confused.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are there any reports of food stamp recipients starving?

[Frank Drackman]

It's only November 5, most of those fat fucks have enough adipose to last them to Spring.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Check p. 1 of the New York Times - that's where the reports would be.

[grb]

What percent of Trump's brain is still functional? From a speech today in Miami:

“For generations, Miami has been a haven for those fleeing communist tyranny in South Africa,” Trump said. “If you take a look at what is going on in parts of South Africa. Look at what is going on in South Africa. Look at South America, what’s going on. We have a G20 meeting in South Africa. South Africa shouldn’t even be in the Gs anymore.”

[not guilty]

Two weeks ago today, Jack Smith offered to testify before Congress in open hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025.10.23-letter-to-chairmen-jordan-and-grassley-re-investigation-of-jack-smith.pdf

The response from Congressional Republicans? Radio silence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/03/us/politics/jack-smith-trump-investigations.html

Hmmm.