Open Thread

Something is amiss with our new daily auto-post feature, so I'm manually posting the thread today.

Comments

[Kazinski]

What are we to make of Justice Jackson issuing administrative stay to the order requiring the Administration to fully fund SNAP benefits without an appropriation?

I can't quite believe she thinks Federal Judges are bound by the Constitution, but I can't think of any other reason.

[Riva]

Hat tip John Hinderaker powerlineblog.com:

"A rogue Democratic Party judge in Rhode Island, John McConnell, ordered the Trump administration to continue fully funding the food stamp program, even though Congress has not appropriated the money to do so. The order, absurd on its face, is already causing chaos. The administration appealed the order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which denied the administration’s request for a stay of McConnell’s order pending the appeal.

The administration then went to the Supreme Court with an application for an emergency stay. Yesterday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (!) issued an administrative stay of McConnell’s order that will remain in effect until two days after the First Circuit rules on the appeal. Given the partisan composition of that court, the Supreme Court may ultimately need to stop the foolishness initiated by Judge McConnell.

What we have seen over the last ten months–hyper-partisan district court judges trying to run the executive branch, by issuing blatantly unconstitutional injunctions, usually “temporary”–is unprecedented in our history. But the Democrats keep making up new rules, and Republicans have no choice but to play by them. Otherwise, Democrats will obtain a permanent, unfair advantage. So, for the remainder of his term, President Trump should appoint federal district court judges who pledge to issue similar temporary injunctions to block Democratic policies, next time we have a Democratic president. Unless the Democrats get a taste of their own medicine, they will shred the Constitution forever."

[Josh R]

The circuit court did not deny a stay pending appeal. It denied an administrative stay while it considered a stay pending appeal. Jackson's order puts in place the administrative stay while the circuit court rules on the stay pending appeal "with dispatch."

[Riva]

They clearly denied relief, allowing the unconstitutional order to go forward. That’s why it was an emergency compelling the administration to go to the S.Ct. You have zero concern over the pattern of unconstitutional orders and gross abuses of judicial power and quibble over irrelevances.

[Riva]

And “irrelevances” perhaps does not properly expose the utter ridiculousness of your comment. You completely miss the point. The judiciary is exploiting “temporary” orders supposedly immune from immediate appellate review to unconstitutionally micromanage the executive. That’s the whole point of this gamesmanship.

[David Nieporent]

Um, no. McConnell's order was immediately appealed.

[Riva]

Um the district court didn't issue an unconstitutional order? The First Circuit didn't sit on its ass and ignore the administration’s emergency request for a stay? Lower court's aren't abusing TROs to micromanage the executive? But the real issue is the grossly unconstitutional lower court order. Just cut the shit and address the real issue if you want to argue this. Otherwise just shut the fuck up and go away. I'm tired of these fucking games.

[Mr. Bumble]

But, but, 40 million Americans? are starving don't you know.
(How the fuck are there 40 million Americans on food stamps?)

[jb]

"How the fuck are there 40 million Americans on food stamps?"

I feel like you think this is a problem with SNAP rather than a problem with society. Most SNAP recipients are elderly, disabled or children. So it seems like we're doing a bad job of otherwise taking care of these vulnerable populations.

[Riva]

Who knows where benefits are going? Take Minnesota as a glaring example of mismanagement and corruption.

Nationally, in general, SNAP recipients exploded under Obama. Democrats resisted efforts by President Trump to bring sanity to the program. Biden was Obama redux, with the added twist of more non-citizen recipients. It would be interesting to have an honest audit of the program.

[Commenter_XY]

Bad job compared to whom?

We have 1 in 8 collected SNAP -- Is that too high? About right? -- compared to EU, Asia or ME with similar programs.

[Poxigah146]

I don't know about Asia, but I suspect in the EU, it's the same as here, disproportionately "migrants."

[jb]

AIUI, similar programs are uncommon. In Europe, general cash assistance is the general model, rather than something limited to food in particular.

Food insecurity is definitely more common in the US than our peers, though. The 1 in 8 rate is also about right for food insecurity in the US, compared to 1 in 12 in the EU, 1 in 20 for Korea, and 1 in 30 for Japan.

[David Nieporent]

Um the district court didn't issue an unconstitutional order?

Um, correct. It did not.

The First Circuit didn't sit on its ass and ignore the administration’s emergency request for a stay?

Correct. It did not. It ruled within about an hour.

Lower court's aren't abusing TROs to micromanage the executive?

I would not characterize it that way, no.

But the real issue is the grossly unconstitutional lower court order.

Which provision of the constitution does it violate for a court to order an administration to follow the law? Judge McConnell found — and the administration does not appear to contest — that 7 U.S.C. § 2257 allows SNAP benefits to be funded through certain already existing appropriations. The administration's position seems to be nothing more than "We don't want to."

[Commenter_XY]

The administrations position is: Congress has not appropriated the money.

[Joe_dallas]

that 7 U.S.C. § 2257 allows SNAP benefits to be funded through certain already existing appropriations. The administration's position seems to be nothing more than "We don't want to.""

"Allow" has a significantly different meaning than "require". Is there language requiring snap to be funded?

[Mr. Bumble]

"§2257. Interchangeability of funds for miscellaneous expenses and general expenses

Not to exceed 7 per centum of the amounts appropriated for any fiscal year for the miscellaneous expenses of the work of any bureau, division, or office of the Department of Agriculture shall be available interchangeably for expenditures on the objects included within the general expenses of such bureau, division, or office, but no more than 7 per centum shall be added to any one item of appropriation except in cases of extraordinary emergency."

[Michael P]

A court said the government has to do it within 48 hours. Doesn't that qualify as an extraordinary emergency? (/s)

[Mr. Bumble]

Because people would starve otherwise.

[Joe_dallas]

Hard to fathom why failure of congress to appropriate funds for snap is an "extraordinary emergency"

[DDHarriman]

>7 U.S.C. § 2257 allows SNAP benefits to be funded through certain already existing appropriations

So Congress allows it, how can a district judge force an Executive to do something nationwide merely because Congress allows it?

Is that the new legal principle? If Congress allows for a particular national policy, and a Democrat judge wants it, then the Democrat judge can command the entire executive branch to fulfill his personal policy preferences?

[Joe_dallas]

DDHarriman
>7 U.S.C. § 2257 allows SNAP benefits to be funded through certain already existing appropriations

So Congress allows it, how can a district judge force an Executive to do something nationwide merely because Congress allows it?"

DD - very simply - its a typical misrepresentation of the law from dishonest dave

[wvattorney13]

That is sort of where I am. I would also dispute that not paying sums that Congress has failed to fund is an "extraordinary emergency." That seems like policy. An emergency cannot be a deliberate choice by Congress.

If this gambit is allowed, then it would not be much of a stretch at all for any court to order the President to do something on the grounds that not doing it would cause great harm.

[David Nieporent]

The stated emergency is beneficiaries not being able to buy food. And the way you describe it makes it sound like the judge ordered the administration to borrow money to make the payments, or to sell an F-16 or something. The order was to take money that Congress had appropriated, and said could be used for this, and use it for this.

[Joe_dallas]

Emergency ? not having someone else pay for your food?

"Extraordinary emergency"? Not having someone else pay for your food?

As WV states - How can a deliberate action (or non action) be considered an "emergency", much less an "extraordinary emergency"

[David Nieporent]

Emergency ? not having someone else pay for your food?

Not being able to afford food would indeed be an emergency.

As WV states - How can a deliberate action (or non action) be considered an "emergency", much less an "extraordinary emergency"

The question doesn't even make sense. If I accidentally back over you with my car in a parking lot, wouldn't you be facing an emergency? Now, what if I deliberately run over you with my car in the parking lot? Why would that make it a non-emergency?

[Joe_dallas]

Playing games with the english language

"extraordinary emergency"

Someone not paying for your food is not an emergency.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Not being able to afford food would indeed be an emergency."

You think Congress intended "emergency" to refer to its own choice to not fund SNAP?

[Joe_dallas]

TwelveInchPianist 7 minutes ago

"Not being able to afford food would indeed be an emergency."

Yes it would in the same Alice in Wonderland's dictionary used by DN, but not using Websters dictionary.

[David Nieporent]

Someone not paying for your food is not an emergency.

If you need food and can't afford it, it is. Are you retarded? Do you not know what happens to someone who doesn't eat?

[Joe_dallas]

As stated - Someone not paying for your food is not an "emergency", Nor is it an "extraordinary emergency"

DN throwing insults when he knows he is wrong.
Its also quite notable that you continue to use the term "emergency" when the statute uses "extraordinary emergency". Why use the incorrect term?

[Mr. Bumble]

They lose those 100 extra pound they're carrying?

[Joe_dallas]

Bumble - a multitude of individuals have corrected DN with his bogus definition of "Emergency" . Quite frankly it is getting old.

[David Nieporent]

As stated - Someone not paying for your food is not an "emergency", Nor is it an "extraordinary emergency"

So, you are retarded. Thanks for confirming.

[ThePublius]

No, David, it is you who is retarded, in terms of common sense and realism. The citizens of the country should not be compelled - via taxes - to provide necessary nourishment to others. That's for family, community, church, and other charity to do - not to mention one's self! How long are we to let this system go on? Until everyone is so dependent? In case you don't know, the entire SNAP system is rife with corruption, creating a huge gray/black market in SNAP benefits. Wake up. It must stop.

That fully 12% of the population of the wealthiest, most prosperous nation in the history of man is supposedly dependent on SNAP is a national disgrace and embarrassment.

[David Nieporent]

The citizens of the country should not be compelled - via taxes - to provide necessary nourishment to others.

I mean, fine. As a libertarian, I generally agree, though I'm pretty sure that food stamps would be low on my priority list of government programs to cut. That's a legitimate policy position. But it — and the remainder of your comment along those lines, which I will not requote — has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, which is not about what our tax dollars "should" be spent on in the abstract, but what Congress has collected tax dollars for and directed they be spent on.

TL;DR:

• "I want to abolish SNAP" = fine.
• "Not having enough food to feed my family is not an emergency" = different, and stupid, claim of bookkeeper_joe's.

[Sarcastr0]

That's for family, community, church, and other charity to do

These have been proven multiple times in history to be insufficient. For lots of reasons, but the fact remains.

You seem to be knowingly condemning families with young children to malnutrition, of not starvation.

How nice for you that you can get other people who you don't know to deal with the consequences of your principled stand.

[wvattorney13]

"The stated emergency is beneficiaries not being able to buy food."

Right. But Congress had voted 14 times (not counting last night) not to appropriate funds to this end. When Congress makes such a choice by failing to appropriate funds for a particular purposes, it cannot seriously be suggested by a court that this situation is one where Congress would believe that emergency and heroic efforts are needed to shift money around to fund it.

[Joe_dallas]

Look who is retarded - The Democrats in Congress obviously did not think it was an emergency since they voted against it 12plus times.

Liar DN is showing his hatred by refusing the use the proper language " extraordinary emergency" since he knows that it destroys his BS twisting the english language.

Liar DN keeps lying about the facts and the law. Failure to have someone else pay for their food is not the same as not letting them buy their own food - Lying about the facts - lying about the law.

[ThePublius]

"That's for family, community, church, and other charity to do

These have been proven multiple times in history to be insufficient. For lots of reasons, but the fact remains."

No, in fact, Sarcastr0, that's how it's been done for millennia. The welfare state is a relatively recent phenomenon, within the last couple of generations.[1]. For example, one of my grandparents came here in 1910. He had $5 in his pocket, and required a sponsor who would guarantee that he wouldn't become a burden on society. His six kids were all born here before SNAP, and no one starved.

"You seem to be knowingly condemning families with young children to malnutrition, of not starvation."

Ha, ha, yea, the typical progressive appeal to misery. Our society has to work to get people off the dole, and encourage - even force - them to become self sufficient. You have to start somewhere. And no on is going to starve in the process.

[1] https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/history

[David Nieporent]

Right. But Congress had voted 14 times (not counting last night) not to appropriate funds to this end. When Congress makes such a choice by failing to appropriate funds for a particular purposes, it cannot seriously be suggested by a court that this situation is one where Congress would believe that emergency and heroic efforts are needed to shift money around to fund it.

Congress already appropriated funds and expressly authorized them to be shifted around for that purpose.

[David Nieporent]

Look who is retarded - The Democrats in Congress obviously did not think it was an emergency since they voted against it 12plus times.

At no point did Democrats vote against using already-appropriated money to pay SNAP benefits.

As for the rest of your argument, how the hell do you think "extraordinary" helps it?

A: "Our entire SNAP fund is empty and people can't buy groceries. It's an emergency, so use this money in its place!"
B: "Can't. That's just an emergency, not an extraordinary one."
A: "You mean this has happened before?"
B: "Well, no. We once had a 5% shortfall, but we've never just entirely run out."
A: "So it's… not ordinary?"
B: "I guess not."
A: "So one might term it… extraordinary?"

[Riva]

Where to begin asshole? As for the First Circuit sitting on its ass, from the administration petition to the S.Ct. for emergency relief:

The government filed an emergency stay motion as soon as it was possible to file in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which was this morning, and requested a ruling by 4 p.m. The First Circuit requested a response due by noon, but as of now, has not yet ruled on the government’s motion. In light of the extraor circumstances presented, and to allow this Court time to consider the issues this application raises before the order’s compliance deadline of today elapses, the government is filing this application now. See Sup. Ct. R. 23.3.

As for the district errors, there are many statutory errors but from a constitutional standpoint, the fundamental error arises from the lower court’s failure to understand the separation of powers. In a nutshell from the brief:

[The] unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. The core power of Congress is that of the purse, while the Executive is tasked with allocating limited resources across competing priorities. But here, the court below took the current shutdown as effective license to declare a federal bankruptcy and appoint itself the trustee, charged with picking winners and losers among those seeking some part of the limited pool of remaining federal funds.

And apparently the lower court’s decision was so outrageous, even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was compelled, belatedly, to act.

I guess we do have some idea where to rank asshole in the leftist parthenon of stupid. Somewhere far below Justice Jackson. Which is pretty scary. Asshole merits no additional comment.

[Riva]

And I refer anyone who wants more details on the First Circuit to read "The First Circuit Is Not A Denny's."

It can't be noted enough, I know you're an asshole, but do you have to be such a stupid asshole?

[Riva]

I'm sorry, my error, ignore my above response. I had lost sight of the fact that you're simply an asshole troll. Well, an exceptional asshole troll really, as far as asshole trolls go. So carry on with your bullshit. You will regardless of the comment posted. For the aforementioned reasons.

[David Nieporent]

Bot simply programmed to insult because it is not capable of making substantive responses.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Ya think? Well she only used the word 'asshole' 3 times in the last response; unusual for the stuffy, Victorian old crone that I imagine the macro to be. She's feisty for a Puritan that's for sure.
Such cuss words! My word!

[David Nieporent]

Does the bot identify as a "she"? Or are you just choosing that for convenience?

[BrotherMovesOn]

First impression - the name Riva is the feminine form.
I don't know why folks say "he".
Ergo in my mind she is a Puritan old scold, but inexplicably very potty-mouthed.
And I don't know why I keep calling it 'she'.

[Riva]

That’s this troll’s reasoning? Do we add up asshole’s sick “bot” comments and compare? Regardless of numbers, “asshole” is not a sick dehumanizing insult. And it’s quite fitting. We could make it stupid asshole if that makes you feel better? Because only a stupid asshole could fail to grasp the separation of powers concerns in the present case. (Of course all this assumes asshole is not just exchanging comments with an alias of himself.)

[Jmaie]

Thank you David, for reading bot's posts so we don't have to...

[Riva]

You read them parrot troll (or asshole alias). You have no real response, but can't stand leftist bullshit being exposed for the bullshit it is, hence the sick dehumanizing insult. But, still you read them.

[Poxigah146]

What Trump really should do is order Special Forces and SEAL teams to kidnap these rogue judges in the middle of the night and make sure they disappear forever.

Do it to a few, and not a single Democrat Party judge will dare rule against the administration again.

I have faith that there are enough patriots in the military who would carry out this lawful, and necessary, order.

[David Nieporent]

Yawn. Again, troll better.

[Riva]

He's as deranged as you asshole. I'm surprised you two don't get along better. For all I know he could be a crazy alias of yours.

[jb]

AIUI, she wanted to give the Circuit Court time to take a look.

Having said that, if she were being as partisan as she regularly gets accused of, maybe she's just trying to make the Trump administration own the political consequences of fighting in court to make sure people go hungry.

[Poxigah146]

Anyone on food stamps is already a Democrat Party voter anyway.

[Josh R]

It means nothing more than an administrative stay requiring the circuit court to act on the request for a stay before SCOTUS does.

[Bunny495]

I got the feeling this was an attempt by the SC by having Jackson do it was trying to make the point that judges can't go that far off the reservation. Whatever one thinks about SNAP benefits no one disputes Congress has the power of the purse in funding them. In this case the emergency fund had around 4.5 billion dollars and it costs around 8 billion dollars a month to fund SNAP. It is one thing to tell Trump to spend money Congress has approved but telling him to make money to spend out of thin air is another ball of wax.

I can't recall so many lower court rulings being bashed by the SC. Sad to say I don't see any reason to think this will abate any time soon.

[jb]

No, each Justice is assigned to handle emergency appeals, etc from a specific circuit. KBJ is the designated Justice for the First Circuit as you can see here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx

So the appeal automatically went to her.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The district court didn’t order the government to “make money to spend out of thin air.” It ordered the government to use the contingency fund and section 32 funds to pay the benefits.

[Poxigah146]

Those contingency funds were not earmarked by Congress for that purpose. It'd be like Congress setting money aside for the National Park Service and a judge ordering Congress to use it for repairs on the Pentagon.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Now you are just making stuff up. The contingency fund was earmarked by Congress to pay SNAP benefits. The Trump Administration can’t decide on its own to not fund SNAP benefits when Congress has allocated funds for that purpose.

Since the contingency fund doesn’t contain enough money to pay full benefits for the month of November, the Trump Administration could in principle pay reduced benefits for November. The Trump Administration announced its intention to do just that. The Trump Administration did the math wrong, announcing a 50% benefit cut when only a 35% cut was required. After the plaintiffs hired an expert to do the math correctly, the Trump Administration indicated that it couldn’t manage the logistics of making a partial payment in a timely fashion.

Congress has permitted but not required the executive branch to use section 32 funds to fund SNAP payments, so the Trump Administration always had the option of paying full SNAP benefits for November. Making full payments became the only option available to the Administration when it admitted it was incapable of making partial payments.

[Krayt]

They also have the option of the CR, or, god forbid, an actual budget. Remember, these sods are playing a game here. You are lil' doggies being lead by a leash on what to feel outraged over, as they play their game.

Now go over here, lil' doggie. Good.

Now view this echo chamber meme we thought up for you to think. Good.

Now spit out something pro or anti it. We've also got a list of things you can say. Good.

Good lil' doggies.

[not guilty]

"I got the feeling this was an attempt by the SC by having Jackson do it was trying to make the point that judges can't go that far off the reservation. Whatever one thinks about SNAP benefits no one disputes Congress has the power of the purse in funding them. In this case the emergency fund had around 4.5 billion dollars and it costs around 8 billion dollars a month to fund SNAP. It is one thing to tell Trump to spend money Congress has approved but telling him to make money to spend out of thin air is another ball of wax."

You "feeling" means diddley squat. The full court did not "hav[e] Jackson do" anything. A stay application goes first to the Circuit Justice, who may rule on it or may refer it to the full Court. Justice Jackson is the Circuit Justice for the First Circuit. She elected to act on the application herself, without referring it to the Court.

An an administrative stay is not any kind of ruling on the merits of the lower court decision.

[post hoc ergo propter hoc]

fully fund SNAP benefits without an appropriation?

they have an appropriation, they funded WIC out of these section 32 funds, but not SNAP. the court found this arbitrary and capricious. parroting an incorrect legal conclusion isn't an argument and isn't actually engaging with the law.

USDA
has the authority under 7 U.S.C. § 2257 to authorize transfers of these funds
“interchangeably” for the “miscellaneous expenses of the work of any bureau, division,
or office of the Department of Agriculture.” In fact, USDA conceded to, at the
beginning of the current government shutdown, transferring $300 million in Section 32 funds to support the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for WIC. See ECF
No. 21-1 at 6. This clearly undermines the Defendants’ point, as WIC is an entirely
separate program from the Child Nutrition Programs. As such, the Defendants’
reasoning relies on a “legal error” that renders their decision “arbitrary and
capricious.” Doe, 152 F.4th at 287; Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. at 94

[Poxigah146]

Even if we accept your argument, having the authority to do something isn't the same as having a legal obligation to.

[Joe_dallas]

"Allow" has an entirely different meaning from the word "require", with require or any similar word notably missing from the statute you cited.

[not guilty]

"I can't quite believe she thinks Federal Judges are bound by the Constitution, but I can't think of any other reason."

Kazinski, an administrative stay (which here will expire 48 hours after the First Circuit rules on the applicants' motion for a stay pending appeal) has nothing to do with the underlying merits of the lower court's decision.

Justice Jackson denied the application for stay pending appeal. I suspect that she is goosing the First Circuit to rule promptly.

[David Nieporent]

Justice Jackson denied the application for stay pending appeal. I suspect that she is goosing the First Circuit to rule promptly.

I think the part where she said that she expected the First Circuit to rule promptly kind of gives that away.

[Commenter_XY]

Why bother with Art1 (Congress) if Art3 (Fed Judges) can treat the US Treasury like an ATM machine for their favored program? And no questions asked, either.

[David Nieporent]

You're confused about the facts.

[bernard11]

Why bother with Art1 (Congress) if Art3 (Fed Judges) can treat the US Treasury like an ATM machine for their favored program? And no questions asked, either.

Your premise is false. Take off the Trump-colored glasses and try to pay attention.

[John F. Carr]

There are at least two ways to look at it.

1. The District Court judge was so erroneous, and the imminent harm so great, that a stay was needed.

2. She knew the Supreme Court would overrule her if she denied a stay so she granted one on her terms.

[Kazinski]

Here is the order here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26221020-25a539-admin-stay/

[Absaroka]

Three strikes working as intended:

1)First strike, bludgeoned a man to death, 12 year sentence
2)Took a metal pipe to a sleeping man, tried to stab him, 2 years
3)Hit man multiple times with a machete, LWOP

Two years for #2, given the facts and his history, seems very light.

[Longtobefree]

Skin colors and judges political party, please.

[Absaroka]

Don't know or care about those things.

[David Nieporent]

That you would ask is quite telling.

[Kazinski]

Spokane is in Eastern Washington close to the Idaho border, its less than 3% Black as I recall, and Washington has judicial elections.

I actually voted for Washington's 3 strikes law and this is how it is supposed to work, eventually you run out of chances.

[Poxigah146]

The defendant looks to be a medium-skin Hispanic, probably Puerto Rican or Dominican if I had to guess.

[Davy C]

I'll agree that 2 years was light. I'm not someone who thinks typical cases should get the max, but here we had someone who had already been convicted of manslaughter going after a sleeping person and then pulling a knife and threatening to kill him. If that doesn't get you the max (or at least close to it) for second-degree assault, what does? (The max was 10 years, I believe.)

[David Nieporent]

I'll agree that 2 years was light.

It does sound that way, but without knowing the specifics, there is no way to judge that. It's not clear whether the second offense was a jury verdict or a plea bargain. If the latter, there may have been proof problems — a bad witness, for instance. Maybe he had at least a semi-plausible claim to self-defense.

[Absaroka]

"Maybe he had at least a semi-plausible claim to self-defense."

Maybe, but ISTM you'd need some pretty peculiar facts to justify attacking a sleeping person as self defense. Chasing the person you say you are defending against is a tad problematic as well:

"Irizarry approached a man sleeping on the ground and hit him several times with a metal pipe, the prosecutor’s office said in a news release. Irizarry then pulled a knife and lunged at the man while threatening to kill him. The man tried to run, but Irizarry chased him"

[David Nieporent]

Yes, that's what they say now. But those facts may not have been established before the hypothesized plea.

[Absaroka]

I went looking. It seems that A) he did commit an assault and B)the assaultee was not a nice person either - he had previously stolen the assaulter's backpack and assaulted the assaulter[1] in the process.

So, while in no way justifiable as self defense, the 'victim' had dirty hands as well.

I don't much like the 'it was just crooks fighting each other' outlook, but agree it's a thing.

[1]lots of assaulting going on here

[David Nieporent]

Thanks for doing the legwork. So it was a jury verdict, not a plea, which makes the sentence less defensible.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If the latter, there may have been proof problems — a bad witness, for instance. Maybe he had at least a semi-plausible claim to self-defense."

Then he shouldn't have prosecuted. If you think someone may have done something, but can't prove it, you let him go, you don't split the difference.

[David Nieporent]

One doesn't always know whether one will be able to prove it. (i.e., what a jury will decide).

[Kazinski]

Here is a wild theory about the J6 pipe "bomber". The claim is that it was a Capitol Hill Police Officer, who now provides security at the CIA. It of course is wild speculation, but there is one detail that does comport with previously released information from the FBI:

"The 94% gait match to Shauni Kerkhoff looks far more damning when you realize the FBI traced the pipe bomber to the house right next door to hers just within days of January 6.

Investigators linked that address to both a Metro card used by the suspect and a vehicle that picked up the bomber on January 5.

Then the FBI reportedly pulled agents, including @KyleSeraphin, off that lead.

That looks like a cover up."
https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1987200977523646815?s=20
More wild speculation here:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/11/08/j6-pipe-bomber-identified-n2666149

This comment is for entertainment purposes only, none of this seems to be from any official investigation.

[jb]

Love this breathless Tweet embedded in the Town hall story:

"This might just be the biggest scandal and conspiracy in American history"

I guess we've moved past "Russiagate" and Arctic Frost being the biggest scandals and conspiracies in American history this week. At least those ones I can understand why folks on the right want to obsess over, but who really cares about the pipe bombs? There seems to be basically zero political valence to the story, but maybe I'm just not far enough down the rabbit hole.

[Kazinski]

Everybody loves a good mystery, and most don't have any political valence.

I was curious about the claim that the FBI had traced the Metro card to an address, so I did a quick search and found a Washington Times Article that has more details, this was printed in 2023:
"Seraphin, who was suspended from the FBI in April 2022 after refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccine and eventually fired last month for alleged unprofessional conduct, criticized the bureau’s early handling of the pipe bomb investigation.

Within days after the discovery of the bombs, he said, FBI investigators reviewed closed-circuit video of the masked pipe bomber as he traveled through the Washington Metro system.

What’s shocking, Mr. Seraphin said, was that the FBI early on linked the bomber to a D.C. MetroRail SmarTrip card. The card indicated that the person got off a train at a Northern Virginia stop after planting both devices on Jan. 5.

“So they tagged the entrance time and the exit time to that card to that guy. And then they found out who bought the card. And the guy who bought the card was not the guy who was using it,” Mr. Seraphin said.

“The card had never been used before. It was bought a year prior by a retired chief master sergeant in the Air Force, and he was a security contractor. So he held a security clearance.”

The FBI had surveillance video that showed the person entering a car with a visible license plate after exiting a Metro stop in Northern Virginia.

“So what they did is they tied whoever the person was that dropped the bombs with [surveillance] cameras all the way through the train and getting into a car with that license plate,” Mr. Seraphin said.

He said the vehicle plate was traced back to the address of the Air Force veteran, whom he and his team eventually surveilled.

“The license plate was either tied back to the guy or the girlfriend of the guy … but it was the same address type of thing,” he said.

“Now, at the end of the day, that makes [him] a person of interest, but it doesn’t make him the subject. … It could have been anybody associated with [the person who dropped off the devices], but it was the place to start.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/12/jan-6-pipe-bombs-rnc-dnc-were-inoperable-says-ex-a/

Mr. Seraphin and his team surveilled the retired airman, who lived in a Northern Virginia town house, for a couple of days and learned about his background.

Although Mr. Seraphin, who also served in the Air Force, wanted to approach the Air Force veteran and talk to him, his bureau superiors forbade him to do so before his team was removed from the case."

[David Nieporent]

There is no such thing as a "gait match," though. It's junk science.

[Kazinski]

Its at least as good as bite mark forensics.

[bernard11]

I would say just as good, which means worthless.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot blood splatter forensics.
Cue Dexter.

[David Nieporent]

Really, just about the only forensic science that has truly been scientifically validated is DNA analysis. Everything else — ballistics, voice analysis, hair and fiber analysis, bullet lead analysis — is at best an investigative tool to rule out matches, not to establish them. Even fingerprints aren't as solid as people think. (It has actually never been established that the premise — that they're unique — is true, but even if it is, identifying matches is art, not science.)

[wvattorney13]

Based on my experience the experts never say that the test "matches" the defendant. They said that the defendant "cannot be excluded" from the test. Of course the jury hears "match" but a defense attorney can use his own expert to exploit that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A problem with the notion of reliable DNA testing is the scientific result may be extremely reliable, but misleading. In real life the limiting factor on reliability is not the scientific one.

Instead, as a practical matter, the limiting factor on reliability is how well-performed was the procedure used to collect the sample, preserve the sample, guard the sample, and prove the provenance of the sample in court. Which in a realistic world puts an orders-of-magnitude different reliability implication on a DNA testing report. I have a relative who sent off his DNA for testing, and got back a report that he was a golden retriever.

If I were a judge, given those concerns, I would not permit anyone to even mention the scientific reliability standard, except as a footnote to those other concerns.

As a defense attorney, I would be asking whether any of those steps took place unwitnessed. The scientific power of DNA testing—considered out of context—makes use of DNA evidence too dangerous to be presented, without qualifications to express accurately the possibilities to use it in error, or to use it malevolently.

[David Nieporent]

Gosh, lucky that lawyers have your expertise to guide them on obscure concepts like chain-of-custody.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — I am more legally ignorant than you think. I do not even know if a lawyer can say in court that a particular genetic analysis is reliable, by asserting only its scientific statistical reliability, and omitting the other stuff. Does that ever happen?

[David Nieporent]

I do not even know if a lawyer can say in court that a particular genetic analysis is reliable, by asserting only its scientific statistical reliability, and omitting the other stuff. Does that ever happen?

Lawyers cannot testify, so no. It would up to witnesses — fact witnesses, to talk about things like how a sample was collected and the chain of custody, and expert witnesses, to describe the technology and analyze the data — to discuss these things. It would of course be the job of the attorney on the other side to cross-examine the witnesses about these issues.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Okay. Thanks for the corrections.

Adjusting for testimony managed by lawyers and judges, does it ever happen in court that DNA evidence is presented in court without, for instance, caution that its reliability is limited by human factors, not by its inherent scientific accuracy or inaccuracy? Is it possible in court for a witness to say the accuracy is some astronomically high scientific number, get no cross examination to the contrary, and for a judge acting properly to let that be admitted as legitimate evidence?

From reading journalistic reports of trials, I formed an impression that is a commonplace occurrence. Making allowance for journalistic distortions, I realize I do not know whether I ought to rely on that impression. Do you know?

[David Nieporent]

Has that ever happened? Sure, both because lawyers — just like any other people — sometimes do their jobs badly and because it may be a strategic choice. If you have no reason to think that the evidence was mishandled, then you're bolstering the case against your client if you focus the jury's attention on something that looks like desperation.

But, no, it's not the presiding judge's role to try to poke holes in evidence; we have an adversarial system.

[wvattorney13]

"I have a relative who sent off his DNA for testing, and got back a report that he was a golden retriever."

No you don't.

[Stephen Lathrop]

wvattroney13 — You may be right. I think the report merely said the sample was from a dog, and I surmised a golden retriever because that was the kind of dog my relative had.

My relative, by the way, knows a thing or two about DNA. He was an MD clinical geneticist until he retired.

[Absaroka]

It seems there are, not surprisingly, some disreputable pet DNA analysis companies. A lady thought the results for her pet seemed odd so she sent in a sample of her own DNA, and got a report she was a Bulldog/Collie/Cane Corso mix.

One of the local TV stations heard about that and decided to send human DNA to 3 labs. Two said they didn't find canine DNA, and one - the same one the woman had used - reported that the reporter was a Malamute/Shar-Pei/Labrador mix.

So there is at least one careless or fraudulent pet DNA company out there - stop the presses!

Forensic DNA testing is not without its problems. The book "Inside the Cell" by Erin Murphy is a good, accessible discussion of the things that can go wrong. It is also, of course, very useful. You just need to realize the limitations.

[David Nieporent]

Exactly.

[Kazinski]

I'm glad you got it.

[Joe_dallas]

Gait match is a real thing - Ask any athletic coach, especially track or endurance coaches. Its never going to get 100% positive ID, though will eliminate 95+% of the population.

[Bored Lawyer]

There is lots of junk science that goes on in federal and state courts.

[Mr. Bumble]

...also a failure to have learned the basics if high school civics.

[bernard11]

Which seems bizarre to this non-lawyer.

Why weren't these things validated before being used as evidence that might send someone to prison for a long time?

Where do the ideas come from, and why are they blindly accepted?

My own baseless conjecture is that they are handy ways to convict someone who "everybody knows" is guilty, so no one wants to look too closely.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And David NoMind (a) knows every classified project that exists and (b) is free to talk about it.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Metro card business was covered on pages 60-61 of the report linked below. POI (person of interest) 2 walked around Washington, D.C. photographing objects with numbers on them, including a dumpster near the RNC. He used a Metro card and Uber account belonging to POI 3. The FBI put POI 2 and PIO 3 under surveillance. After inverviewing POI 2, the FBI ruled him out as a suspect.

Seraphin, who was part of the team covering POI 3, complains that after POI 2 was ruled out as a suspect, “we were deliberately pulled away for no logical or logically investigative reason.”

POI 3 was a person of interest only because he was connected to POI 2, so once the FBI cleared POI 2, POI 3 was no longer a person of interest and the FBI terminated the surveillance of him. Seraphin’s self-proclaimed inability to understand the logic behind this is possibly the reason that Seraphin is a former FBI agent rather than a current one.

About the only thing we can learn from this is not to trust The Blaze or Townhall.

https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/f/e/fe4f4a06-d98a-4437-8891-792c5d406213/F503CD6C839F28CEB7D4216055E45035.joint-pipe-bomb-report-cn-bd-cn-mj-db-bd-db-bd-ch-bd-db-db-bd-db-bd---final-version-redacted2.pdf

[wvattorney13]

I must confess that I don't see the logic either. Just because person 2 did not do this specific thing, it is still unusual that a person who is photographing numbers near the RNC is using person 3's Uber account and metro card.

Not evidence for an arrest, but perhaps you keep looking to see why person 3 is giving his stuff to that guy? Is he his brother? Okay, maybe that explains it. Maybe not. But I don't see how you automatically terminate suspicion of person 3 based on this.

[Michael P]

The report only gives POI3's purchase of the Metro card and Uber account (used by POI2) as links to the case, so POI3 presumably stopped being of interest once POI2 did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The FBI. The Blaze. Townhall.

Which of the three has people facing criminal charges for lying?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I alays wondered why the Metrocard wasn't enough for an ID,

[David Nieporent]

Answered by Kenneth Almquist just one post above yours: it was enough for an ID. It just wasn't related to the pipe bombs, despite the amateur sleuthing of MAGA.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which WASN'T THERE when I wrote what I did.

[Kenneth Almquist]

My post was made 9 hours ago and you posted your question 7 hours ago. In any case, you wouldn’t have been wondering in the first place if you didn’t give right wing sources more credibility than they deserve.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Here is the order here:"
Thank you Jeremiah. Appreciate it.

"This comment is for entertainment purposes only,"
Indeed!

[Kazinski]

Ilhan Omar explains why Minneapolis Somalis can't have nice things:

https://x.com/Checkmatedsl/status/1986897537173803094?s=20

[Bunny495]

Joe Rogan and Elon just discussed how some judges in North Carolina are not required to have a JD. The first post in this thread is about a ruling from a seeming left wing judge that was bashed by the most left leaning judge on the SC. Point is having a JD is probably no guarantee of good decisions.

Over the years I have seen some rulings that seemed wrong to me but recently I can't keep track of how many lower court rulings have been bashed by the SC. While I hope this trend does not continue, I am not hopeful.

[David Nieporent]

The first post is not about a decision that was "bashed by" anyone. No decision was made on the merits — not even a tentative one. This was an administrative stay to give the 1st Circuit time to consider whether to issue an actual stay.

[Life of Brian]

An administrative stay the 1st Cir. itself should have granted, given that the deadline for the order being appealed was the end of that night.

Otherwise, they're just constructively denying the motion to stay while going through the motions of considering it.

[post hoc ergo propter hoc]

it's a court of equity though and you can be punished for being an asshole, which is what this was. the first order on Nov 1 required they make the partial payments and clear up "admin hurdles" IFF they choose to not make full payments. they didn't comply by nov 3 or nov 5 so the next order required full payments.

imo, this just requires the 1st to have a written decision instead of silently denying it after another blown deadline, the way the 5th does. AEDPA requires courts to make a written decision in death stays and dilatory/ noncompliance etc are routine reasons for denial but there's no requirement for a written order in any stay denial other than AEDPA ones, but KBJ's stay i think requires one so SCOTUS will also have to write one instead of also denying or granting it without comment. that's her motive, imo, force 1st to write and so force SCOTUS to write on it. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71820142/rhode-island-state-council-of-churches-v-rollins/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc ECF 19 was the original order then the dilatory/ noncompliance.

[David Nieporent]

imo, this just requires the 1st to have a written decision instead of silently denying it after another blown deadline,

The First Circuit did rule, expeditiously, and issued a written opinion explaining why it declined to grant the administrative stay: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.53495/gov.uscourts.ca1.53495.00108364203.0_1.pdf

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Wake up. Not saying this is what is happening in the case before the Court. Not within my expertise to try to figure that out.

But as anyone can see, in Trump/MAGA cases, run-wild proceduralism has become a go-to new-style merits response from SCOTUS. If you delay folks getting food, no matter how procedurally you do it, you take a substantive action with irreversible effect.

As any lawyer ought to know, insistent procedural scruples are not always used as forthright instruments to promote justice. When that happens repeatedly, a lawyer interested to promote justice ought to be calling it out. Then, if you think the procedural issues still meritorious in that context, explain why they promote justice in the particular case under discussion.

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea what you're saying here or how it is responsive to what I wrote.

[Commenter_XY]

Have you ever heard of a SCOTUS justice 'instructing' a circuit court to rule with dispatch? Has that happened before?

[David Nieporent]

Sure. Can't cite something off the top of my head, but the language chosen — we expect that the lower court will handle this expeditiously — doesn't strike me as unusual.

[Bunny495]

Once again you ignored the main point of my post and instead go off on confusing tangent. Whatever you think about Jackson issuing a stay my main point about an increasing number of lower court rulings being reversed by the SC still stands. I still stand by my speculation that this trend will increase in the future.

Jackson had the choice of issuing the stay or denying the stay. My analysis of the facts of the case is that MacConnell's ruling will be overturned. Even assuming the best case that the Secretary has the discretionary authority under 7 U.S.C. § 2257 to temporarily transfer a portion of the Section 32 surplus; the key words is discretionary authority (does a judge have the power to order use of discretionary authority). Then there is the question of the "power of the purse" codified in the Antideficiency Act that prohibits federal employees (read Ag Sec) to spend money not voted on by the house under the penalty of discipline, firing, or even criminal penalties.

Bottom line is whether the funding language in the SNAP and Child Nutrition statutes is specific enough to constitute a legal exception to the ADA. Since there words like "permit" and "discretion" in the statutes I don't think a judge has the power to order transferring the funds.

[David Nieporent]

Once again you ignored the main point of my post and instead go off on confusing tangent.

You said "The first post in this thread is about a ruling from a seeming left wing judge that was bashed by the most left leaning judge on the SC." But the first post in this thread was not about a ruling from a seeming left wing judge that was bashed by the most left leaning judge on the SC.

[Bunny495]

It seems we don't agree on the definition of "bash". What Jackson did is a win for Trump and in my eyes, it is a bash. I have little doubt MacConnell's decision will not stand. I also have little doubt even a liberal like Jackson understands this.

[David Nieporent]

Calling it a "win for Trump" is itself dubious, but even assuming that's true, there was no "bashing" of any sort of anyone, let alone of Judge McConnell. You can tell because Judge McConnell wasn't even mentioned, and she did not in any way address the merits of the case.

Even if one wanted to desperately read between the lines to find something in the random flecks of ink on the paper, she would've been criticizing the 1st Circuit for not issuing the administrative stay — not the judge for his ruling.

[Poxigah146]

In some ways, having a JD is worse. The shit my law school professors made up is where these Democrat Party judges get their inspiration from in the first place.

[jb]

Supreme Court Justices (and federal judges generally) don't need JDs either, and I imagine that's the case in a large number of states. Despite this fact, almost all judges have law degrees.

You see a lot of lower court rulings being overturned lately because the Supreme Court is making up law on the fly, often overruling settled precedent, most of the time without explaining themselves. So it's hardly a surprise that district court judges have no idea how to apply the law in a way the Court will agree with.

[not guilty]

The last justice without a law degree was Robert Jackson, appointed in 1941. He attended law school but did not graduate. He had also served as Attorney General and Solicitor General, and he turned out to be a fine justice.

[wvattorney13]

Are you suggesting that ordering the President to spend funds in a particular way is based upon confusion because this Supreme Court has silently overruled precedent?

[DDHarriman]

He's suggesting The Narrative, and only The Narrative.

No other facts or opinions exist.

[jb]

I'm not commenting on any particular case (which should be obvious, since I don't mention the details of any), just the overall situation.

[Michael Resanovic]

I miss the days when you could bring mandamus directly to the supreme court...

[John F. Carr]

As I recall, town justices in New York don't need to be lawyers. If they are not lawyers they need to go to judge school before taking office. These are the people who preside over traffic court.

[Michael Resanovic]

In Ohio's mayor's courts... I shouldn't continue lest I say something to get kicked off here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well it looks like we made it through hurricane season with no storms hitting the US mainland.
Now we're heading into blizzard season in the northern tier of states.
Has anyone had a measurable snowfall in their neck of the woods?

[CountmontyC]

So does that mean global warming exists or not?

[Krayt]

It means natural swings up and down vastly dominate hyperbole of AGW's effect on the number and power of storms. One would expect to see one additional storm occasionally, and a small increase in average power, for a percent or two difference in energy levels.

This with full blown AGW.

[Brett Bellmore]

Global Warming and Hurricanes
An Overview of Current Research Results

"In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in past Atlantic basin hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability, although greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming."

You get the impression that hurricanes have gotten worse, but that's just because of more people living in vulnerable coastal areas.

[Mr. Bumble]

With much more expensive houses than was the norm from earlier times (see NC homes swept into the sea).

[jb]

Reading the rest of that paragraph in context, it's: there's some evidence this might be the case, but because there's so much natural variability we won't know if it's part of a meaningful trend for a while still. Which is fair, but don't overread it to say that there's evidence that hurricane frequency/intensity is not increasing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The classic winter Nor'Easter essentially is a hurricane.
It doesn't come from Africa, but often has a lower pressure in the center.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Has anyone had a measurable snowfall in their neck of the woods?"

You really need to join an old folks Facebook group and stop clogging up legal websites.

[Krayt]

It's off season for storm chaser live streams. The dude and dudette in Twister would probably have a million followers and close to 100k in any one livestream today.

[Mr. Bumble]

@BrotherMovesOn:
Fuck you very much fuckwit and learn to read and comprehend.
Open Thread! Normally followed by; What's on your mind.
By the way, what great legal questions have you brought to the threads?

[ThePublius]

What part of "Open Thread" do you not understand?

[not guilty]

Garry Trudeau hits the mark once again: https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury

[Mr. Bumble]

Trudeau is past his "best by date" by several decades.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G4mnwbwWMAA1caK-1-e1761937998120.jpeg

The University of Pennsylvania is a dogshit elitist institution full of woke retards. We have terrible security practices and are completely unmeritocratic. We hire and admit morons because we love legacies, donors, and unqualified affirmative action admits."
"We love breaking federal laws like FERPA (all your data will be leaked) and Supreme Court rulings like SFFA," the message continues, referencing the Supreme Court case that deemed affirmative action in higher education unconstitutional. "Please stop giving us money. Warm regards, The University of Pennsylvania.

[hobie]

Be careful, Ed. That's where your boy went to school.

[bernard11]

WTF is this? Some idiot hacked it together and posted it.

Why do you link to it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brown Jackson is worried about impeachment.

She believed that if she didn't give Trump the injunction from the first circus, she also would be impeached.

[Commenter_XY]

She believed that if she didn't give Trump the injunction from the first circus, she also would be impeached.

Uh, where did this come from? This is Sarcastr0 level of vibe detection.

[not guilty]

"She believed that if she didn't give Trump the injunction from the first circus, she also would be impeached."

Justice Jackson did not grant Trump and Company the relief they had requested, which was a full stay pending appeal from the District Court decision. She granted an administrative stay for a limited duration.

Article III, § 1 of the Constitution provides that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". Notably, it does not say "during good Behaviour, except when the President is butthurt."

Fifteen judges have been impeached in U. S. history. Since the acquittal by the Senate of Justice Samuel Chase in 1805, no such impeachment has been related to the merits of any rulings made while on the bench. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges

Impeachment typically involves criminal conduct.

[Mr. Bumble]

Impeachment is an artifact from an earlier time.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The "good Behaviour" is a gloss on the idea that federal judges have "life tenure." That is how it is often expressed, but that is somewhat misleading. Several judges were pressured to resign to avoid impeachment charges.

[Bored Lawyer]

Question is what are the limits of "good Behaviour."

Hypo 1: Judge X shows up one day a year, decides one motion, and then takes the rest of the year off to play golf.

Hypo 2: Judge Y states that he will ignore Supreme Court precedent that he thinks is wrong. "You can't catch all of them."

Hypo 3: Judge Z acts in a bigoted manner towards certain types of attorneys. (You can fill in the blank which type.)

Which of these, if any, go beyond the line of good Behaviour?

[Randal]

If there were some sort of Behavior Arbitration Inquisitor and it was me, I'd say only #1.

[Commenter_XY]

All three go beyond the line.

[Michael Resanovic]

1+3

2 is dependent on circumstances.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jerry Ford put it best: An Impeachable Offense is whatever a voting majority of the House say it is.

[not guilty]

And Lyndon Johnson said that Gerald Ford played too much football without a helmet.

[Bunny495]

Gotta give props to Jerry Ford. He was an Eagle Scout at 15, and all state football player back in the day as a linebacker on defense and offensive lineman on offense. He was the captain of the University Michigan national champion football team and first round draft pick of the Detroit Lions. No question he was the best athlete to ever serve as prez. Byron Raymond "Whizzer" White is the only high profile government guy who is in the same class.

[not guilty]

I don't know. Jack Kemp did pretty well for himself in the AFL. Steve Largent and Tom McMillen served in the House of Representatives after playing in the NFL and NBA, respectively. Bill Bradley was a Senator from New Jersey after his NBA career.

[Bunny495]

Point taken.

If you reread my post you will find this line. " No question he was the best athlete to ever serve as prez." The ones you mention were famous as athletes and used that as a springboard to politics and Bradley is the only one with academic achievements close to Ford and White but they both had law degrees from top tier schools. Not trying to dis Bradley but Ford was able to achieve top tier academic success while working his way through college and law school; something Bradley can't match. Bradly did study at Oxford while Ford went to Yale law school; make what you will of that.

[bernard11]

But you also wrote:

Byron Raymond "Whizzer" White is the only high profile government guy who is in the same class.

Which is what I disagree with.

[Bunny495]

Fair enough. Maybe Bradley is high profile enough to compare to White; maybe not. As for the others Kemp and the rest were back benchers as pols.

[bernard11]

Byron Raymond "Whizzer" White is the only high profile government guy who is in the same class.

Bill Bradley.

If "high profile government guys" includes Senators, then Bradley was certainly the best athlete in the group.

Jim Bunning is a few steps behind, and Wilmer "Vinegar Bend" Mizell is somewhere back in the pack. Maybe Reps are too far down anyway.

[John F. Carr]

No judges ruling against Trump should be worried about impeachment. Ambitious lower court judges may consider the reduced chance of a promotion in the next four years and the increased chance of a promotion when Democrats are in control.

The liberals on the Supreme Court should not be worried about court packing either. Nobody cares enough to make the 6-3 majority an 8-3 majority.

[Joe_dallas]

In summary, those lower court judges are auditioning for SC seats when a leftwing democrat gets elected. Looks like quite a few auditioning.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and despite being slightly past 6:00 AM in the East it is still Saturday in the VC.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One analysis argues mayor-elect Mamdani's proposals would relatively speaking not be expensive.

One thing noted is that it was determined that already 48% of bus riders don't pay their fare. That seems high though I have seen evidence of significant skipping of fares.

I took a "select bus" recently and the curbside kiosks have not been updated to match the new fare cards. I tried to pay on the bus (as instructed) but the machine wasn't operating. Those buses have heavy traffic. That alone would be notable.

I also take another route occasionally and there is a large crowd that merely goes in the back door w/o paying.

https://www.juancole.com/2025/11/proposals-surprisingly-affordable.html

[Mr. Bumble]

So theft of service is another non-crime in NYC to be fixed by eliminating fares.

[DDHarriman]

Another classic Democrat maneuver

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was Trump 45 who raised the minimum income required to file -- to save money.

There are real costs involved in collecting fares -- it costs Amtrak something like $8 to sell a can of Diet Pepsi for $2.

And collecting fares slows down the bus.

[Randal]

Dr. Ed showing cognitive abilities! Is this some sort of joke I'm not getting?

[Nelson]

A small child grabbed his phone and commented, which is why his post seems more intelligent than normal.

[Bunny495]

Back in the day when I was a student studying transportation planning there were only two mass transit organizations that made a profit; the Linwood Line in Philly and the San Diego Trolly. Fare jumping has always been a fact of life.

As an aside I recently had my Sprinter van in the shop for an oil change and took a bus to pick it up. Not sure what it is called but that pedestal where you insert your transfer/student card/whatever or drop in change was not working and everyone rode for free on the first bus. I transferred at the main station and the second bus broke down half way to my stop. It took me about 23 minutes according to google maps to get home in the van but almost four hours to get to the shop where the van was.

[John F. Carr]

My understanding is free fares do not directly affect NYC's budget. An independent agency is responsible. The transit agency might demand payment from the city in return for free rides, as happened in Boston, and then the City Council needs to appropriate the money.

As a rule of thumb, fares cover about half the operating cost of mass transit. Every billion dollar line added "for free" with somebody else's money increases the operating deficit.

[Nelson]

I’m leaving for Savannah today to celebrate birthdays (mine and my partners, fives days apart). I want to take this opportunity to make a PSA on behalf of the city. It is absolutely beautiful and if you have the chance, you should visit. It has amazing architecture, a great historic district, is very walkable with small squares (like tiny parks) throughout. Plus the historic district is one of four places in America without any open container laws (with Beale Street in Memphis, the French Quarter in New Orleans, and the Strip in Las Vegas). Strolling around a beautiful city with a craft beer in your hand is better than therapy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thankfully for you the birthdays are not during the summer months when the heat and humidity can be a bit much.

[Nelson]

Right? My three least favorite things are heat, humidity, and bugs. So South in the summer is … not for me.

[Commenter_XY]

Have a wonderful time, Nelson. And happy birthday!

May you have many more happy birthdays in your future.

[Nelson]

Thank you.

[Poxigah146]

Check out Savannah's Seafood Shack on Broughton and then Leopold's for ice cream for dessert after.

[Nelson]

Mmmm, Leopold’s. So good!

[Paladin_44]

Enjoy a traditional southern supper at Mrs. Wilkes Dining Room (used to be called "Boardinghouse", I think).

[Nelson]

I always wanted to check it out, but I’m a vegetarian so there isn’t anything I can eat. I understand that it is a must-go spot for visitors who eat meat.

[Bunny495]

Obligatory post when Savannah is mentioned. My choice of one of Clint Eastwood's best movies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_in_the_Garden_of_Good_and_Evil_(film)

[Nelson]

Fantastic movie. John Cusack is a vastly underrated actor.

[DDHarriman]

Did anyone see that interview where Sidney "Great Tits AND Great Genes" told that woke bitch to fuck off when she was trying to put Sidney in that struggle session?

She's gonna be crowned queen one day.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sidney's not stupid.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, and she has great...

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

She’s going to be a great mother…her baby will get more than enough milk.

[Bunny495]

Also saw it mentioned on the Greg Gutfeld show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ROku9BB9A

[Bwaaah]

In the Friday thread, I accused Sarcastr0 of having little concern for costs of government spending. He replied thusly: "You're always wrong."

He went on: "I, by contrast, have offered taxes and reindexing benefits, and compromise on spending. Likely a good solution is a mix of these."

I believe that was his attempt to refute my assertion, although it's not clear that it does. He seems to be shying away from the issue of costs, and instead focusing on deficits (and his desire for more revenue).

My question for Sarcastr0 was this (to which he did not respond): What cost(s) do you want to cut, in what amount(s)?

[Mr. Bumble]

Which is why I refer to him as Il Douche. And just in case anyone's forgotten:

Douche
someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.

[Randal]

Reindexing benefits seems pretty clear cut to me.

But I think I see what's going on here. You accused Sarcastr0 of having "little concern for costs of government spending." I assume by that you mean "less concern than I personally feel is warranted." So when he did in fact demonstrate concern, you deemed it still too "little concern" since it didn't rise to your level. Is that about right?

[Bwaaah]

No. It was that he accused Brett of not caring about costs. And he intimated that he (Sarc) did care about costs. By my informal preponderance of their arguments, I think he has "who cares about costs" reversed. So I asked him there, and here, what costs he wants to cut, to consider how interested he may be in cutting costs.

[Michael P]

Lol, https://x.com/PecanC8/status/1986943422586876096

"I arrived thinking everything would be free, only to be charged $13 for a Bud Light. I was shocked after all the hard work I put in," one progressive campaign worker said.

Quick turn FAFO.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bud Light. How appropriate.
Was Dylan Mulvaney tending bar?

[hobie]

"Trump Administration Slapping 25% Tariffs on Canned Beer Imports and Empty Can Imports from Across the Globe"
https://www.brewersassociation.org/government-affairs-updates/tariffs-on-beer-and-empty-can-imports-announced/

[2016] "Donald Trump, billionaire, hosts 'victory' party charging $11 for a beer"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/us-election-results-donald-trump-victory-party-charging-11-for-a-beer-a7405996.html

You got anything else, MichaelP?

[Bwaaah]

I worked as a poll worker on election day in NYC. There was a Democratic observer there, an attorney, who routinely attends elections in that role. When one of the other poll workers asked if there was going to be an after-election party, he said that though the state party always throws victory parties, they were not doing so this election.

CONGRATULATIONS TO DEMOCRATS ON THEIR FIRST ELECTED DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY!!!

[hobie]

We have to keep an eye on him in regards to affiliations with Muslim terrorist extremists. If we see him giving or receiving gifts - for himself or his family - with known terrorist states, I say we impeach him.

[Bwaaah]

duhh..yeah Boss. yeah. we gotta do that, Boss. all that. yeah.

[Randal]

Is that your impression of South Park's Vance impression? Needs work.

[hobie]

He's channeling Loony Tunes. MAGA-level stuff.

[Nelson]

“ We have to keep an eye on him in regards to affiliations with Muslim terrorist extremists. If we see him giving or receiving gifts - for himself or his family - with known terrorist states, I say we impeach him.”

MAGA’s lack of awareness is astonishing. This is literally what Trump has done with foreign governments with questionable allegiances.

[DDHarriman]

Who do you think opened the Gates of Toledo this time?

[David Nieporent]

CONGRATULATIONS TO DEMOCRATS ON THEIR FIRST ELECTED DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY!!!

Bill de Blasio was elected within the last decade.

[hobie]

We're all marxist, tranny pedophiles, so why should Mamdani be any different?

[ThePublius]

"No, Bill de Blasio was not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), but he was a member of the Democratic Party and was described as a young leftist in his youth. While he has supported leftist causes, particularly in his earlier career, and his ideology aligns with some socialist principles, he is not a member of the DSA."

[Bwaaah]

I stand corrected.

CONGRATULATIONS TO DEMOCRATS ON ANOTHER ELECTED DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY!!!

[hobie]

Interesting timing for forcing a reduction in Ozempic prices for Americans. One hypothesis is that if you get everyone in American on Ozempic now, they won't be bothered with the food they're no longer getting or cannot afford.

But Dr. Oz put it all into context at the news conference:

"American's will lose 135 billion pounds by the midterms"

At 330 million Americans, that's 409lbs per person by the midterms. Which coincides with the math for general drug price reductions of 1000%. So by the midterms most American's will dead and also owe about 200 extra pounds.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"that's 409lbs per person by the midterms."

I could do that easily. Lose 5 lbs, gain it back, lose 5 lbs, gain it back...

[Bunny495]

"Lose 5 lbs, gain it back, lose 5 lbs, gain it back..."

I have done that more times than you have.

[hobie]

Guess what? I've been exactly 170lbs since I was 18. Never changes no matter how much or little I eat.

[hobie]

Looks like things didn't take long at all. Took my ladies to the food bank Thursday. Closed. Completely empty. Staff said there was a run starting Nov 1st.

Then here comes this morning. Doorbell rings, it is the oldest lady that lives on the block. She said she was starving and begged me for $10. After she leaves, one of the neighborhood hustlers rings the bell. He's got a small box of food bank staples (I easily recognize them). Wanted $6 for the box. So looks like a food black market is already forming.

And I have even more good news for you hayseeds. All 42 million people will completely forget all this and won't vote accordingly. I also note that news clips I saw of food bank lines in both North and South Carolina were ALL white rednecks...so no blowback there. Keep up the good work, hayseeds.

[Randal]

It's about time for the rural redneck population to wean themselves off the federal government teat and show some personal responsibility, don'tcha think? Down with the SNAP-Lords! How dare they live not-very-high-off-the-hog on my blue-state dime.

[hobie]

Anyone that can afford to be off of it should definitely skedaddle. Food and healthcare are not rights.

[Randal]

Since Americans by definition are responsible and self-reliant, these Hillbilly SNAP Lords are clearly illegal immigrants who must be deported forthwith. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

[ThePublius]

FYI:
"Race and ethnicity
White: White individuals are the largest racial or ethnic group among SNAP participants, accounting for over 35%.
Black: Black individuals make up the second-largest group, with nearly 26% of participants. Black people are disproportionately more likely to receive benefits than their representation in the general population.
Hispanic: Hispanic individuals constitute about 16% of SNAP recipients. Like Black individuals, Hispanic people are disproportionately more likely to receive benefits than their representation in the population.
Other groups: Smaller percentages of recipients are Asian (about 3-4%) or Native American (about 1-2%)."