Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Martinned]

It occurred to me yesterday that there is another reason why the Republicans didn't want to nuke the filibuster: It is politically attractive to force the Democrats to support unpopular policies. If the Republicans adopted such things on a party-line vote, they would get killed in the next election(s).

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-demand-tougher-abortion-restrictions-extend-obamacare-fund-rcna243206

Senate Republicans say they’re open to extending a pot of Affordable Care Act funds that will expire at the end of the year — but only if Democrats acquiesce to stricter abortion restrictions on insurance plans.

[Frank Drackman]

Repulsive much?

[Brett Bellmore]

I had somewhat suspected that the 'cave' in the Senate actually involved a few Republican Senators assuring the Democrats they'd defect and vote for some unconscionable crap, like continuing emergency spending levels.

[Commenter_XY]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

SNAP recipients can receive benefits faster with full (not partial) payments. There will be a vote to extend PPACA subsidies in December. Senator Thune has his work cut out for him (yet again).

In January, we will probably repeat these theatrics (hopefully not, though).

One other conclusion...SNAP needs some DOGE attention. There is some level of fraud there, and it needs to go. That number -- 42MM recipients -- is a big number (12% of US pop).

[Armchair]

There's arguably more fraud in the Obamacare Biden-subsidies.

Issue is, they created a lot of "zero cost" health care plans. This resulted in a large spike in "zero-claim" individuals.

It turns out, you can make a lot of money by "signing up" someone for a health care plan they don't know about. That person never has to pay a dime. And they never file a claim either. But the health insurance company gets lots of premiums from the government....

https://paragoninstitute.org/private-health/ghostbusting-aca-fraud-millions-who-dont-use-their-health-insurance-expose-abuse-in-the-program/

[Commenter_XY]

Get rid of the fraud, no matter where it is.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you aware fraud in federal programs takes federal workers to root out and prevent?

And that IG's in particular have been targeted by this administration?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sometimes the easiest way to get rid of fraud is to take away the opportunity for it.

[Joe_dallas]

likewise it's worth noting who is screaming the loudest for the continuation of snap and the aca subsidies.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I am aware your ideal world has poor people all pulled up by their bootstraps or dead.

Your worldview has no space for anyone not like you.

[Michael P]

It takes federal workers to remove opportunities for fraud. Technically. Even though it requires a lot fewer than it does to sustain the program in question. But never mind tricky things like cost-benefit analyses, Gaslight0 loves him an analysis of selected costs.

[Sarcastr0]

If I were making a policy prescription, I'd be sure and do so!

My point is specific to Commenter - his blind cheerleading for every federal employee getting fired is not aligned with his blithe desire to get at fraud.

If you want me to say how I'd reform entitlements, I've got a proof but it's too large to fit in the margin :-P.

[Mr. Bumble]

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."

[Krayt]

Lucas was so good.

Also:
"Dellow Felagates!"

[Mr. Bumble]

"was"

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Republicans can get everything they really want via reconciliation…they don’t support new programs they just support tax cuts and huge deficits.

[Riva]

Republicans don't need to do anything to force Democrats to support unpopular policies. “In the Trump years, to be progressive is to constantly feel an implacable sense of impotence and rage. This was the real reason for the shutdown — it was a readily available instrument for expressing an unreasoning hatred of Donald Trump.

Democrats believed that the moment, as Otter famously said in the movie ‘Animal House,’ required a ‘stupid and futile gesture,’ and acted accordingly.”

Rich Lowry, NY Post, The pointless government shutdown is over — but Schumer and Dems’ psychodrama only just getting started

[DeAnnP]

A provision was included in a recent federal funding bill that opens the door for Republican lawmakers whose phone records were seized during the FBI's "Arctic Frost" investigation to potentially receive up to $500,000 in compensation to cover legal fees, should they sue the government.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Supreme Court's decision not to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges bodes ill for hopes the Court will do anything substantive to impede Trump/MAGA overreach. Look instead for more endless delays delivered by shadow docket maneuvers prior to next year's election.

That, anyway, would be consistent with the Roberts Court's established pattern, to faux-balance substantive decisions against D's political interests with culture war concessions which make some on the left feel good, but which do little or nothing to constrain right-wing political power. On reflection, the Court's Obergefell pass likely preserves right-wing angst against gay marriage as a mid-term political motivator.

I expect the Roberts Court will do everything it can do to avoid delivering any check to Trump/MAGA at all, prior to the upcoming election. It will look more-or-less like a replay of the run-up to Trump's victory, where delay to prevent criminal trials was perceived on the right as indispensable to political triumph.

No concern whatever for Constitutional constraint, or for the Court's perceived legitimacy, will be permitted to interfere with this Court's priority to deliver political victory to Trump. If there are principled judges among the Court's right-wing majority, they will rationalize that the time for constraint will come only after constraint cannot upset the election outcome. Just as they did previously.

But even that hope seems vain. The Court has not since that election seemed in any hurry to subtract even an iota of the kingly power it felt compelled to preserve for Trump to assure his victory.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your 'reasoning' here seems a bit unfalsifiable.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Nonsense. The part about the past is rightly unfalsifiable. Any given interval of past experience remains at all times what it always was. But of course almost the entire body of past human experience is promptly forgotten.

A posited inference about a forgotten past may, or may not conform to what actually happened. As a means of correction, only a similarly vulnerable counter-inference will be available, unless and until some presently unsuspected historical survival turns up to broaden relevant new insight. That new insight will come in the form of yet another inference, but perhaps one which better encompasses newly-expanded subject matter. Or perhaps not.

As for the part about the future, nobody can expect predictions about an imagined future to be reliable. It is an impossibility to lie about an unpredictable future. To think otherwise requires a contradiction in terms. Thus, events as they unfold cannot give the lie to prior predictions.

Therefor, it is a category error to assert a prediction made in the present was falsified by later events. The later events do not apply to a prediction made looking forward, because the later events can only be understood in retrospect—retrospect relative with regard to the time of their occurrence. Reasoning methods valid for retrospective inference, and reasoning methods valid for future inference, remain unlike categories.

For completeness, permissible methods for reasoning about the future will never become permissible for positing inferences about a forgotten past. The future remains endlessly protean; the past has already happened, and remains in principle not subject to change.

Beyond those considerations lies a considerable body of philosophy about what historical reasoning can and cannot accomplish, and by what means. I will not get into any of that now.

[Brett Bellmore]

What makes it unfalsifiable is that you have reserved for yourself the right to declare that any loss at the Court was just a ploy to make giving them a future win, and thus doesn't count.

So you can explain away any deviation from your predictions, meaning your predictions can't be falsified.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump’s first military order in January 2017 ended with a dead little American girl and 9 dead little foreign kids…and his supporters didn’t give a shit! Then Trump surrendered to the Taliban and once again his supporters didn’t give a shit and blamed Biden!! And recently Trump forced Netanyahu to release 1900 Hamas terrorists at Qatar’s behest and his supporters actually cheered it!?! Trump was 100% correct when he said he could murder someone and his supporters would stand by him.

[David Nieporent]

The Supreme Court's decision not to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges bodes ill for hopes the Court will do anything substantive to impede Trump/MAGA overreach. Look instead for more endless delays delivered by shadow docket maneuvers prior to next year's election.

So your "logic" is that SCOTUS not giving MAGA what it wants proves that it will give MAGA what it wants. Oh, I know, you've invented some weird 3D chess theory in which they trade off "culture war concessions" for "substantive" decisions. Except that doesn't even work, because SCOTUS has also given MAGA significant culture war victories, such as Dobbs and Skrmetti.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Me:

That, anyway, would be consistent with the Roberts Court's established pattern, to faux-balance substantive decisions against D's political interests with culture war concessions which make some on the left feel good, but which do little or nothing to constrain right-wing political power.

That is a point I have made repeatedly, and accurately, over years of comments. Roberts has always been content to decide for Republican interests essentially every case which directly effects election outcomes—by which I mean stuff that moves election results by force of laws which govern election activity. Stuff like gerrymandering, political money cases, voter rights cases, union election cases, voter registration procedures, and voter ID.

To keep things looking less-than-totally partisan stacked, the Roberts Court has thrown out culture war sops like those you mention. Those too have served to help mobilize right-wing voters against Democrats.

It is a nearly unbroken pattern. A few cases based on records so stuffed with fraud they made right-wing support impossible have delivered exceptions. Some of Trump's evidence-free election-results lies, for instance. But if I recall correctly, those tended to get decided below the Supreme Court.

Another problem was Dobbs turned out a politically inconvenient victory in some ways. I consider that a different issue. I mean to distinguish political activity cases from the larger partisan-valence set of cases more generally. The former group is the one which shows the pattern. Call the others political preference cases to better understand the difference.

The former group involves cases which legitimately get governed by laws, but nevertheless should not get partisan governance. The latter group involves cases where legislative power ought to predominate over that of the courts, and where maybe public opinion ought to rule out even legislative meddling.

Of course Roberts and his allies understand that awarding all the political process victories to right wing interests will long-term swing culture war victories their way too, if not by court victories, then by legislation. Right wing commenters who attack Roberts for culture war heterodoxy are thus too dumb to understand what Roberts is up to. If the cases are about legal provisions which affect election-related activities, the Rs win. If Rs win on the political process, long-term they expect to win everything.

If you think partisan political opportunism that brutal amounts to 3D chess, that does not strike me as a helpful metaphor.

[David Nieporent]

To keep things looking less-than-totally partisan stacked, the Roberts Court has thrown out culture war sops like those you mention. Those too have served to help mobilize right-wing voters against Democrats.

Um, those I mention were not sops; they went against Democratic preferences, and thus would not "keep things looking less-than-totally partisan stacked."

[ReaderY]

While Ms. Davis has standing to challenge the judgment against her, and when she was a county clerk state law might possibly (not likely but possiby) have given lower-level officials authority to defend the constitutionality of state laws, now that she is a private citizen she has no more standing to challenge Obergefelle than any other private citizen who happens to disagree with it. The Supreme Court won’t take a case where there is obviously no standing.

Sometimes simple legal rules are a better guide to what the Court does than elaborate Kreminolgy.

I doubt that there would be more than 3 votes to reverse Obergefelle at this point. But for a case where there was clear standing, I’d expect to see a dissent or two by Thomas, Alito, and/or perhaps another Justice.

[loki13]

There were numerous reasons why the Davis case was a loser case. Not just legal reasons (which were many, manifold, and manifest) ... but optics as well. She was, perhaps, one of the worst possible poster children for bringing the case to SCOTUS.

It was always a media case, and never going to be an actual vehicle for overturning Obergefell.

That said, I have no doubt that now that Roe is dust, overturning Obergefell IS firmly in the sights of certain people, and, for that matter, Griswold.

...I mean, at a certain point, why not Loving?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

...I mean, at a certain point, why not Loving?

Because it is a lot easier to target "substantive due process" and modern-day understandings of equal protection in non-racial areas? Loving briefly addressed SDP precedents, but it was mostly reliant on equal protection principles.

Loving is a fun reference for some people for multiple reasons. First, they get to bring up Clarence and Ginny Thomas.

Second, some people can allege Calvinball regarding originalism and history and tradition. Some defenders of the faith point to a limited number of early precedents that applied equal protection to interracial marriage.

But even that was mixed, and the original public understanding was largely against it, as one contributor noted here.

This game only works so far since there is such a wide understanding that race is different & blatant racial classifications based on clear racism are a special case. The fact that people are not totally consistent here turns out to be a limited "gotcha."

Oberfegell and Griswold have a certain degree of broad public support, unlike Roe v. Wade. They are open to some threats, especially around the edges. For instance, what is an abortifacient? What does "religious liberty" entail? etc.

The Respect for Marriage Act also protects same sex marriage on a national level. Some will argue it is constitutionally problematic or try to overturn it. It does show the value of statutory protections.

[Joe_dallas]

Joe from Bronx - "But even that was mixed, and the original public understanding was largely against it, as one contributor noted here."

Original understanding largely was against in 1789ish, though original understanding of the 1780's was nullified with ratification of 14A which is when original understanding starts anew for purposes of loving, etc.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm talking about 14A original understanding.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Oberfegell and Griswold have a certain degree of broad public support, unlike Roe v. Wade

To be clear, there is a broad amount of support nationally for abortion rights. The level of dissent, especially regarding the breadth of Roe, is much higher than the other two.

[David Nieporent]

That said, I have no doubt that now that Roe is dust, overturning Obergefell IS firmly in the sights of certain people, and, for that matter, Griswold.

In a country of 330 million people, yes, of course there are some who want to overturn Obergefell; there are some who want to overturn Brown, too. But there is no significant constituency for doing so. There's no national anti-gay marriage movement, no tens of thousands of people rallying in Washington each year on the anniversary of Obergefell, and gay marriage enjoys much broader support than abortion did.

[Riva]

A comment that demonstrates a profond ignorance of the issues and bad faith by attempting to define those opposed to the judiciary legislating their police preferences through the due process clause as somehow being racist.

[John F. Carr]

She has standing to challenge the money judgment. Can the money judgment be overturned without reaching the merits of the original case?

Technically, the court could issue a summary ruling like: "The money judgment is reversed and plaintiffs take nothing. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed." That is not the Supreme Court's style.

[hobie]

"preserves right-wing angst against gay marriage"

Lathrop, you seem to predispose that the right has animus or hatred towards gay people. For that to be true, you would have to see MAGAs say nice things about one vulnerable group of white Christians, but nasty things about the other. You would have to see enactment of laws preferential to one, but detrimental to the other.

[Frank Drackman]

Government used to hand out free Cheese/Butter, whatever happened to that?
and I've got a 3 word phrase to solve the whole Ish-yew.
"Get a Job"
Wow, I thought Sha Na Na wrote that song, hey, they played at Woodstock.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

The original, by the Silhouettes, came out in 1957 or '58.
Sha Na Na (the group) took their name from the opening lines of the chorus and covered it at Woodstock.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's no such thing as free cheese, just cheese somebody else paid for.

My aunt used to get that cheese back in the late 60's, early 70's. She didn't like cheese, so we'd trade with her. It was darned good cheese, no "cheese food product", it was the real thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

IIRC government cheese was processed cheese, but it was good. You could hand out a hunk of that, a bottle of oil, and a couple loaves of Wonder Bread and keep the kids in grilled cheese for a week.

Maybe sensibilities about what is healthy has changed. Also, more kids are getting free school lunches and breakfasts, so maybe feeding the kids isn't as much of a priority.

[Mr. Bumble]

From Wiki:
Government cheese is processed cheese provided to welfare beneficiaries, Food Stamp recipients, and the elderly receiving Social Security in the United States, as well as to food banks and churches. This processed cheese was used in military kitchens during World War II and has been used in schools since the 1950s.
Ingredients:
Government cheese is "pasteurized process American cheese", a term with a standard of identity. It is produced from a variety of cheese (cheddar cheese, Colby cheese, cheese curd, or granular cheese), made meltable using emulsifiers, and blended. Other ingredients specified in the standard of identity may be used.[3]

[Martinned]

Yes. Food stamps are a subsidy for American farmers, who have a disproportionate influence in American politics. That is why food stamps (still) exist.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you mean like insurance companies have a disproportionate influence on American politics and that's why ObamaCare subsidies exist?

[Martinned]

Do they? Farmers = Iowa = a year out of every presidential hopeful's life. What is the equivalent for health insurance? Campaign donations?

[Frank Drackman]

Could you at least put a minimum of effort into your insentient comments?
"Food Stamps" went away in 2004, it's been EBT since, seems it was too humiliating for the Po' to have to hand actual Paper Stamps over to the Cashiers, so they gave them a card so they can pretend they're paying with their own money.
Oh, almost forgot, only reason you're not speaking German or Russian is the Defense "Subsidy" Amurica's given you (Redacteds) for the last 100 years.
Oh yeah, might want to bone up on your Arabic.

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Food stamps are a subsidy for American farmers

One thing that makes it obvious is that they're administered under the auspices of the Dept of Agriculture, rather than, say, HHS.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not so obvious.
Food stamps have a long and on and off history going back to 1939 when indeed farmers were a major beneficiary and why it was administered by the Department of Agriculture.
"At the time of the Great Depression, farmers were growing surplus produce, but unemployed and impoverished people were unable to afford to buy it.[citation needed] The origin of food stamps was intended partially to help the poor, but just as equally to boost the economy and pay farmers a fair price for their labor.[citation needed][8] In essence, food stamps were intended to create a political agreement between agriculture and the federal government by giving out excess goods in a crisis.[9]" wiki
That program ended in 1943.
Since then it has taken several forms but today retailers are among the biggest supporter.
"In June 2014, Mother Jones reported that "Overall, 18 percent of all food benefits money is spent at Walmart", and that Walmart had submitted a statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stating,

Our business operations are subject to numerous risks, factors, and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control. These factors include... changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, [and] changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.[31]

Companies that have lobbied on behalf of SNAP include PepsiCo, The Coca-Cola Company, and the grocery chain Kroger. Kraft Foods, which receives "One-sixth [of its] revenues ... from food stamp purchases" also opposes food stamp cuts.[31] " wiki

[Joe_dallas]

concur -
"Companies that have lobbied on behalf of SNAP include PepsiCo, The Coca-Cola Company, and the grocery chain Kroger. Kraft Foods, which receives "One-sixth [of its] revenues ... from food stamp purchases" also opposes food stamp cuts.[31] " wiki"

Its no longer the farmers that are the primary beneficiaries of the government subsidies, it has become the food processing companies and Bumble notes above.

[Bunny495]

As a life long Florida man I wish more state would follow Florida's good example. The state of Florida has received approval to ban the purchase of certain "non-nutritious" items. Effective Date: January 1, 2026. Restricted Items in Florida: Soda/Soft Drinks (which includes Pepsi), Energy Drinks, Candy (including candy bars),Prepared Desserts (like packaged cakes and cookies). Time to tell PepsiCo, Coke, and the rest of the rent seekers to bend over and take it in the ass with no lube. Legally while the feds allow food stamps to be used to purchase shit states have final jurisdiction and can do like Florida's good example.

[Martinned]

It turns out that having a female PM of Japan has an unexpected (to me) consequence:

Anticipation is building among sumo fans in Japan as they wait to discover if the country’s first female prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, will defy centuries of tradition and step into the sumo ring to present a trophy later this month.

With 11 days of the current 15-day tournament in Fukuoka, south-west Japan, remaining, government officials have left the sport’s devotees guessing with vague comments over the likelihood of clash between Takaichi and the Japan sumo association.

Women are banned from entering, or even touching, the “sacred” dohyo, or arena, due to a belief found in Shinto, Japan’s indigenous religion, that they are “impure” because of menstrual blood.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/12/japan-pm-sumo-wrestling-ban-women

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that she is 64 years old, I'm pretty sure she is no longer menstruating.
Of course she could always say she "identifies" as a man.

[Martinned]

Given that she is 64 years old, I'm pretty sure she is no longer menstruating.

I think you're applying too much logic to a weird religious belief.

Of course she could always say she "identifies" as a man.

What does gender identification have to do with menstruating?

[Frank Drackman]

Nothing, you exhibit your PMS here non-stop.

[Commenter_XY]

Would it be culturally taboo (in Japan) to:
a) have a male representative of the PM present the trophy to the winner
b) the PM herself present the trophy outside the ring
c) make a new tradition and not have the PM, any PM, present the trophy to the winner

Sanae Takaichi is on a steep learning curve; she is learning the job. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

I've heard Nagasaki and Hiroshima are literally "Blowing Up" over it.

[hobie]

...they are “impure”

I have a fetish to admit: I watch videos of sumos cooking and eating their food. It is bizarre yet riveting. It also makes plain that sumo men are anything but pure themselves

[Sarcastr0]

Observations from this, and lefter forums:

Cranks - Have an endless supply of idiosyncratic versions of facts from history and the news, as well as even more idiosyncratic interpretations of the same.

Idealogues - has one big philosophical hot take around which all their posting revolves. Sometimes it's well trod ground, sometimes it's weirder, sometimes it's well trod ground but with new terms the poster likes. They'll turn every discussion into yet more proof of their philosophy, no matter how they gotta twist things into pretzels to do it.

Lunatics - has some kind of mental thing going on. Their posting often has the whiff of farming for negative attention, but they're not here for laughs, they're super serious. About everything.

Utopians - doesn't like this world, preferring a radical and unrealistic version they've figured out where everyone is happier whether they like it or not. They'll support or believe most assaults on the current system, hoping they can remake the world out of the pieces.

Obligate partisans - they've picked a side have sincerely fallen for every single bit of propaganda it puts out. Very angry at anyone who even seems to question their facts, which smacks of being part of the vast legions of The Other Side. Consistency is a distant second priority, and fidelity to actual facts isn't even on their map. Often work hard to take offense often and performatively.

Trolls - here to fuck with people. Generally but not exclusively with a partisan lean on who they target. The ones that last either have some gimmick or are smart enough to see (and I guess enjoy) the effect they have on the larger group dynamic, not just some few individuals.

[Mr. Bumble]

You left out one:
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.

[Bwaaah]

Il Douche would qualify as a troll if it weren't for the fact that he believes everything he says, which puts him in the general category of stupid annoying people as well as douche.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0:

Self-satisfied bystanders - may not like what is happening, but cautious commenters. First and foremost, they guard circumstances and premises which delivered their present state of satisfaction. Motivated discounters of any notion of a changeable future.

[Riva]

Where do pseudo Marxist gaslighting clowns fit in your little world, Sarcastr0?

[Bwaaah]

That *is* his world.

[jb]

You forgot bots

And the occasional normal person

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of normal people; this is about those uninterested in engagement. Like my reply guys above.

Except for spambots, I don't think I frequent forums popular enough to have actual bots, just people bad enough at reading they might as well be bots.
That type spans the space, including normal people.

[Mr. Bumble]

Per Hillary, "it takes a village" and every village has the village idiot.
Thank you Il Douche for filling that roll.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Terms like "trolls" are sometimes overused.

Dubious sorts come in different flavors as noted.

A general thought of mine own. It is not that easy to carefully engage. It is a learned ability. It also takes some time.

For instance, certain things can be checked quickly, but people don't want to do that. So, they make assumptions or something that confuses things. This is often the response to a news story. A close read, following links, etc., can clarify a hot take.

People often quickly read something and comment. They don't want to spend the time to think things through and work things out back and forth. There is just so much time. I'm not special here. I read a lot of things online. I only give each thing a limited time.

Also, I don't get a flag when someone responds to me on this blog. That can also limit engagement somewhat.

The best you can hope for long-term is a rough understanding and respect for reasoned discussion. The same is true overall when people vote and engage with people in various fora.

[ducksalad]

Squares on Break - people who in real life discipline themselves to be polite, truthful, tolerant, and profess (maybe even sort of believe) mild mainstream opinions about race, sex, and politics. To relieve the strain, they take breaks online to let out stuff they would not risk around friends and co-workers.

[Sarcastr0]

Tis true - I don't act at all like this in my work life.

[Martinned]

This is weird:

Prosecutors in Milan have opened an investigation into Italians who allegedly paid members of the Bosnian Serb army for trips to Sarajevo so that they could kill citizens during the four-year siege of the city in the 1990s.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/11/milan-prosecutors-investigate-alleged-sniper-tourism-during-bosnian-war

Obviously the investigation is ongoing, nothing has been proven yet, etc, etc., but what is wrong with people?

[Frank Drackman]

Your Eurotrash are so Superior with your 87 languages (although 95% of Europeans only speak their own (and English of course) so again with the Indefinite Pronouns, "they" in this case.
Are the Italians paying members of the Bosnian Serb Army so Italians can kill citizens, or so the Bosnian Army can kill citizens??
I guess the Italian Army's out since they haven't killed anyone for centuries.

Frank

[Martinned]

Speaking of former Yugoslavia, this is also interesting. (It doesn't really have anything to do with Jared Kushner, except to the extent that he and his company are American.)

Thousands of people have protested against a plan to tear down a former army headquarters in the Serbian capital Belgrade to make way for a luxury hotel complex, as part of a project linked to US president Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
(...)
Many Serbs see the old headquarters, which were damaged in a 1999 Nato bombing campaign during the Kosovo conflict, as a tribute to those who died and a monument to Yugoslav-era modernist architecture, and they opposed the signing of a 99-year lease deal with Affinity Global Development last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/12/jared-kushner-protest-belgrade-building-serbia

Serbia has a populist right-wing president and government, so normally you'd put the anti-government protesters in the camp of liberal democracy. But in Serbia, just because you support liberal democracy, doesn't mean you think your country was in the wrong in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.

This, of course, is an example of the more general question of whether you can bomb a people into understanding they are wrong about something. Just because a country lost a war, doesn't mean the people accept that it was morally right for them to have lost.

[John F. Carr]

I infer that Italy claims jurisdiction over murders by its citizens abroad.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15280105/chinese-aide-linda-sun-democrats-new-york-mansion.html

How many other couples like the Sun's are there, covertly working to advance CCP's agenda in the US. There are more, in rather odd places too (i.e. owning a trailer park a mile or so from busy USAF base in the Midwest, or industrial buildings in CA near ports).

POTUS Trump says that China promised not to invade Taiwan while he was in office. We have until January 2029 to identify these people, like the Sun's (who are credibly accused of advancing CCP's agenda here), in the US.

Other: Governor Hochul has some 'splaining to do next year. This was a top aide for an extended period of time (starting with Cuomo in 2012). I hope there aren't other Governors with the same problem.

How do you systematically identify these people without running afoul of the Constitution? It remains to be seen if the civil rights of the Sun's were violated in building the case.

[jb]

In this context, it's very weird that the only group of foreign students that Trump had said he's going to continue to let in are the Chinese ones.

[Commenter_XY]

I actually agree with you about that = Chinese students. It is unwise to let in 600K Chinese students, considering the state of relations with China.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Moved

[Frank Drackman]

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Frank "Ike in 2028!!!"

[Martinned]

Over in my professional area of activity the European Commission has published a Competition Policy Brief (= their infrequent essays about a particular policy topic) about legal professional privilege in competition (=antitrust) cases. The Commission has said that it is sticking with the traditional line that in-house lawyers do not have LPP.

https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/890dcc49-5fd7-4e48-a9f4-698ac9bdfe08_en?filename=kd0125016enn_competition_policy%20brief_on_LPP_2025-1.pdf

This is a frequent topic of debate, which is why they're talking about it now. They're doing a general review of competition enforcement procedure, and a lot of lawyers submitted consultation responses mentioning this point. (Because it's a frequent topic of controversy, particularly among English-speaking lawyers.)

It makes sense that the Commission isn't going to expand the scope of LPP. Why would it? There's a line of case law going back to 1982 confirming the current line, wich is so far back that the ECJ still used to write its judgments in all caps.

21. (...) There are to be found in the national laws of the member states common criteria inasmuch as those laws protect, in similar circumstances, the confidentiality of written communications between lawyer and client, provided that, on the one hand, such communications are made for the purposes and in the interests of the client’s rights of defence and, on the other hand, they emanate from independent lawyers — that is to say, lawyers who are not bound to the client by a relationship of employment.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61979CJ0155

I'm not sure how it can be workable to include in-house lawyers within the scope of LPP. In any case, this seems like a battle that the legal profession should fight at the ECJ and the ECtHR, not with the Commission.

[Frank Drackman]

So you're down with LPP???
Actually, you guys will be better off as a Province of Greater Palestine.

[Martinned]

I guess the most interesting thing in this policy brief is the summary of Member States' positions under national law. Obviously it's tricky to reduce this issue to a yes/no question, hence the footnotes, but by the Commission's count five Member States out of 27 recognise LPP for in-house lawyers. One of which is the Netherlands, for the record.

(I'm not sure how relevant that is, because Dutch companies don't tend to employ members of the bar in-house. Members of the bar tend to work for law firms, and in-house legal advisors are either people who have never been a member of the bar, like me, or people who let their bar membership lapse.)

[Frank Drackman]

Does "Interesting" not mean the same thing in Europe??

[Martinned]

It's always hilarious to see people complaining about too many immigrants while they are themselves living in a foreign country. The most tragic example of that was all those Brexit-voting Brits living in Spain, but this one is pretty up there as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/11/09/germany-far-right-seibt-asylum/

A prominent far-right German activist has applied for political asylum in the United States, citing fears for her safety, as the Trump administration has signaled plans to prioritize protections for White refugees and Europeans who claim they are being targeted for their populist views.

The activist, Naomi Seibt, is a social media influencer and supporter of the nationalist, anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which German authorities have labeled extremist.

[Frank Drackman]

She's probably just tired of getting groped by creepy Moose-lums like you. At least in the US she'll be able to "Constitutional Carry" and respond with a .357 Caliber Vasectomy

Frank

[ThePublius]

"which German authorities have labeled extremist."

And who the hell are these "German authorities?" Let me tell you: they are political opponents of AfD.

It's the same as here, where anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is labeled a far right extremist by the Dems and the press.

[Martinned]

And who the hell are these "German authorities?" Let me tell you: they are political opponents of AfD.

Euh, not so much. It's the Verfassungsschutz, aka the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which is famous for its pro-right wing bias. Not too long ago their boss was this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Georg_Maa%C3%9Fen

Also, the designation of an organisation (in this case a political party) as suspected of extremism is surrounded by extreme legal safeguards, which is why it almost never happens. In this case the decision was upheld in court and on appeal. (As you would know if you had clicked on any of the links I provided when the AfD came up last week.)

[hobie]

Living in southern Portugal for 10 years, I'm well acquainted with the bigotry of the English. All other nationalities are kind to immigrants, but not the English. But when they veer off into hypocritically bashing America for its bigotry, I have to point out to them that we are really just about 8 generations removed from being English ourselves. I do think we get inherited our racial hatreds.

[Michael P]

How many dirt cheap mansions in slums filled with Black people are there in Portugal? (Asking for a friend.)

How kind are Japanese to immigrants?

[Armchair]

OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma — ICE and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, a 287(g) partner, arrested 70 illegal aliens during a two-day special emphasis operation from Oct. 28 – 29, including 36 criminal aliens and 34 found violating state law by operating a semi-truck or commercial vehicle while in the U.S. illegally. Similar to other recent operations, “Operation Guardian” resulted in the arrest of many illegal aliens driving trucks that had been issued Commercial Drivers Licenses in states with sanctuary policies such as California, Illinois, and New York.

This effort led to the arrest of 70 illegal aliens, including 26 who had been issued a CDL and 8 other aliens who were dangerously driving a commercial motor vehicle without a commercial driver’s license at all.

For the second time in just the past month, the state of Oklahoma and ICE have banded together to bolster public safety along Oklahoma’s highways, identifying and apprehending illegal aliens who are in the country illegally and have been recklessly issued a commercial driver’s license by states like California, Illinois, and New Jersey,” said ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Executive Associate Director Marcos Charles. “Many of the illegal aliens arrested behind the wheel of an 80,000-pound tractor trailer can’t even read basic English, endangering everyone they encounter on the roads.”

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-and-oklahoma-bolster-public-safety-states-highways-removing-34-illegal-alien

[Martinned]

How many people did they check, and what was the legal and constitutional basis for those checks?

[Frank Drackman]

1: A bunch
2: There's no Constitutional Right to drive a Commercial Vehicle.

[Mr. Bumble]

There is no Constitutional right to drive, period.

[Martinned]

No, but there's a Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

[ThePublius]

As I said in another reply, there's no constitutional issue here, with stopping commercial drivers for credential, logbook, etc. checks. Read up, don't be an ass.

[David Nieporent]

There's no constitutional right to manufacture cocaine in one's basement, but that doesn't mean that the govt can search people's basements w/o a warrant to look for cocaine.

[Bunny495]

My brother (before he retired) owned a long-haul trucking company. While I may not be totally up to speed on all the laws, rules, and regs related to commercial vehicles I can assure you there is nothing stopping authorities from stopping vehicles (even private ones that may look like commercial ones) and asking for papers.

On a return trip from the VA hospital in Gainesville to Tallahassee I was stopped in my Sprinter van by the Florida Highway Patrol's (FHP) Office of Commercial Vehicle Enforcement (CVE). Totally legit even though I am a private citizen not engaged in commerce. The officer was quite nice after it became clear there was no commercial activity (took about 30 seconds to figure that out). Still he ran a computer check and complimented me for having a street legal vehicle with required insurance and being a veteran who he thanked for their service.

Bottom line is if you are engaged in commerce or look like you could be engaged in commerce you are fair game.

[wvattorney13]

It is the "heavily regulated industry" exception. I have the same problem with that as an original matter as you likely do, but it is no mystery how these investigations are being done.

[ThePublius]

You know, you're just an anti-American, anti-everything troll! Commercial truck drivers are required to stop and be questioned and audited. You don't need probable cause or anything of the sort to stop and check them. It was probably done at weigh stations, at which they are required to stop and present their license, manifest, and log book. Geez.

[Martinned]

Take it up with the drafters of the 4th amendment.

[ThePublius]

You obviously don't understand driving regulations in the U.S. Don't be a fool, do some research. There's no 4th Amendment issue regarding weigh stations and commercial truckers.

[Martinned]

It would be quite remarkable if a person was deemed to have waived all their 4th amendment rights when they get behind the wheel of a commerical truck. That's a proposition I wouldn't simply accept on your say so, I'm afraid.

[ThePublius]

Well, then you're not just letting people assume you're an ass, you're proving it.

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash: The state and/or local police can institute a roving safety roadblock (roving = different location every day) on a road within their jurisdiction, and examine all commercial trucks passing at that roadblock for a safety inspection. That is perfectly legal.

[Martinned]

How is an immigration check part of that "safety inspection"?

[Armchair]

Part of safety is ensuring that the driver is properly credentialed. Once you're doing that check anyway, it's not a problem to also run it through other crime and immigration databases.

1. Check the driver's license.
2. Put it through the DL database. Ensure it's accurate
3. Put it through the crime database, make sure there aren't any outstanding warrants, like...from Interpol.

[Martinned]

That's still quite a distance away from letting ICE stop trucks for the primary reason of checking immigration status.

[ThePublius]

"A "287(g) partner" is a state or local law enforcement agency that has an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to perform certain immigration enforcement duties under federal authority. Through a formal Memorandum of Agreement, these partners are authorized to help identify and process immigrants who may be subject to removal from the U.S., enhancing the federal government's ability to enforce immigration laws."

[David Nieporent]

287(g) only permits state officials to do immigration enforcement that they're otherwise constitutionally allowed to do.

[Commenter_XY]

The primary reason can be a road safety checkpoint. The fact that ICE may or may not be there is irrelevant to the purpose of the stop (road safety).

[Commenter_XY]

The local police can, at their discretion, require a CDL driver to be fingerprinted at a police station and run those prints against federal databases.

As long as all trucks are stopped for the same reason (road safety inspection), and the safety inspection for all is the same (everyone gets the same inspection), then incidentally identifying immigration status as a part of that safety inspection process is perfectly legal.

[Sarcastr0]

The local police can, at their discretion, require a CDL driver to be fingerprinted at a police station

Is that correct? Do you have a source for this? It'd be news to me, though I admit I'm some years out of criminal procedure class.

[Commenter_XY]

The police can require anyone stopped at a road safety inspection to be fingerprinted at a police station, if they find something amiss and that could be any number of things (outstanding warrant, immigration status, drugs/alcohol, etc). The person detained can take it up with the judge later, but they can absolutely be detained and fingerprinted.

So long as everyone is stopped for the same reason, and subjected to same inspection, what the police find incidental to that stop is perfectly legal to follow up upon (e.g. bring them in for finger-printing).

Here is just one NJ law firm. https://www.njcriminaldefensellc.com/roadside-checkpoints

All cars must have the same standard and reason for being stopped

[David Nieporent]

The police can require anyone stopped at a road safety inspection to be fingerprinted at a police station,

Um, no. I have no idea where you got that idea from. (Certainly not from your link.) Yes, if they develop a reason for an arrest as the result of a safety inspection, then they can arrest the person. But there is no general right to stop people to try to find criminal activity, and no right to arrest someone — which is what you're describing — without probable cause.

[Commenter_XY]

You and I have a serious case of agreement = Yes, if they develop a reason for an arrest [detention] as the result of a safety inspection, then they can arrest [detain, fingerprint] the person

What I described was a road safety inspection.

[Sarcastr0]

"The local police can, at their discretion, require a CDL driver to be fingerprinted at a police station."

Discretion is the exact opposite of needing a reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think "criminal procedure" class would have helped you with this, if true it's a commercial regulation under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Criminal Procedure is the name but 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8A is the game.

Administrative stops are covered. Sitz is the seminal case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz

[John F. Carr]

In American law, commercial motor vehicles are subject to stops for inspection in situatiuons where private passenger vehicles are not. All motor vehicles can be stopped for certain public safety checks as long as the choice of vehicle is predetermined, like stop every tenth vehicle for a sobriety check. And finally, pretextual stops are legal and encourage. Any truck doing 56 in a 55 zone can be pulled over for an immigration check. In the last case the stop may be illegal if it was made for a specifically prohibited reason, like the race of the driver. But proving racial discrimination probably wouldn't get the license reinstated. The remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation is suppression of evidence in a criminal case or a civil suit against the police officers.

[David Nieporent]

Any truck doing 56 in a 55 zone can be pulled over for an immigration check.

No. It can be pulled over for the purpose of writing a speeding ticket.

[ThePublius]

Let me ask Martinned: what bad came of this? Were anyone's rights violated? (Answer = no.) Were people not legally entitled to drive trucks removed from the roads? (Yes.) Were people in the U.S. illegally taken into custody? (Yes.)

What's your problem?

[Martinned]

My problem is that doing immigration checks of drivers without any sort of probable cause seems like the sort of thing that ought to be worth a conversation. It may well be constitutional, but it's not obviously so. It's certainly an interference with a lot of people's liberty.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, you don't need probable cause of a crime to do a safety inspection of a commercial truck, including confirming the identity of the driver. It's at THAT point at which the liberty gets interfered with.

And having stopped them to do that check, probable cause is not required to confirm whether they are a citizen or at least lawfully present.

I get that a lot of people don't want immigration laws enforced, don't view them as really legitimate, and so try to invent all sorts of obstacles to enforcement that aren't really legally present.

But it's just not a constitutional violation to check the immigration status of a commercial truck driver.

[Sarcastr0]

BrettLaw aside, immigration stops not near the border are not obviously constitutional.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite? Or is that a vibe?

[David Nieporent]

Were anyone's rights violated? (Answer = no.)

We do not remotely have enough information to answer that.

[jb]

From that ICE release:

"This effort led to the arrest of 70 illegal aliens, including 26 who had been issued a CDL and 8 other aliens who were dangerously driving a commercial motor vehicle without a commercial driver’s license at all."

Huh? What about the other 36?

I think the fact pattern with those others is that they were actually allowed in the country and had valid CDLs, but had committed some crime so ICE was (on the spot?) revoking their legal status. Seems weird to lump them into the same "illegal alien" category as the others, if that's the case, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

You might consider that some of those arrested might have been passengers.

[jb]

Sure, that's a possibility too. Although that seems to open up more troublesome 4th Amendment problems. It seems reasonable to me to check on the license, etc. of the driver of a commercial vehicle. It does not seem obviously reasonable that the cops can demand citizenship papers from everyone in a vehicle, even if it turns out the driver isn't authorized to be doing so.

[Frank Drackman]

See that someone named "Jack Schlossberg" is running for Jerry "the Nad" Nadler's Congressional Seat, it's being reported like I'm supposed to know who he is.

Frank

[PaulS]

How have you been impacted by the shutdown? I've heard alot about it but haven't otherwise noticed.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, I thought I was getting my VA Contractor pay, since they didn't cancel any assignments, but I'm not. Coincidentally my Medulla Oblongata's been acting up lately and I've had to take some time off. Seriously, I haven't been stiffed on a paycheck since the Piano Company I worked for in College (Delivering them, not playing) went bankrupt. (I got them back though, I stole all their Metronomes, without them setting the proper Tempo those Pianos are worthless!!!!!)

Frank

[Armchair]

Were Democrat leaders conning the progressive base?

One of the questions about the shutdown is why it even happened. I mean, nothing was going to be realistically obtained...at least in Congress. We knew Democrats were angry and wanted to fight.

The below is the best answer for why the shutdown happened. Democratic leaders wanted to energize the base for the off-cycle 2025 elections. By having a shutdown and "proving they were tough"...they energized the progressive base to turn out and vote for Democrats. Once the election was done, the Democrat leaders had accomplished their goal with the shutdown...goosing turnout. And it was time to end the shutdown on the deal they would all agree on before hand.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/11/cooling-the-mark-out.php

[apedad]

To answer your question; no.

The recent elections were not some national referendum.

Zohran Mamdani, Mayor, New York City
Abigail Spanberger, Governor, Virginia
Mikie Sherill, Governor, New Jersey
Prop. 50 − a redistricting measure designed to push back against Republicans' redrawing of maps in GOP-led states, Cali

It's highly likely these results would have been the same without the shut down (maybe not the overall magnitude but the same overall results).

[Armchair]

What's important is what "drove" these elections. Typically progressives. Do progressives just "sit out" out of disgust if Democrats just instantly agree in Congress?

[Ska]

[Commenter_XY]

I agree with your take = It's highly likely these results would have been the same without the shut down

The real fight is for the House in 2026. A good economy favors the incumbent.

[Josh R]

Right now, Trump (and by extension the GOP) is getting very bad marks on the economy and inflation. That's what drove the 2025 results (along with Trump not being on the ballot with his low-propensity voters sitting it out as they always do without him om the ballot).

[hobie]

Correct. All those races were well ahead in polls prior to the shutdown. It is the towering MAGA corruption across all states that is the driving force.

[ReaderY]

In both the tariff and the National Guard cases, the Supreme Court seems to be exploring ways to rule against President Trump that avoids putting lower courts in the position of ruling that the President lied.

In the tarriff case, they explored the position that the statute does not authorize tariffs at all. Similarly, in the national guard cases, they are exploring the possibility that the relevant statute does not create an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act and hence the President can’t ever call in the National Guard to conduct civilian law enforcement.

The Justices in the tariff case seemed uninterested in whether the current situation is actually an emergency or not.

I am wondering if this is a deliberate course. Finding a structural legal way to say the administration lacks the power to do what it wants avoids directly challenging the President’s character in a way that the Justices might perhaps consider dangerously political and confrontational.

The structural approach results in the Presidency generally not having the relevant power at all. This avoids having to determine if President Trump abused his power.

It’s like a corporate restructuring that eliminates a position entirely to avoid the potential for confrontation and litigation that comes with firing a potentially volatile or litigious employee for misconduct or poor performance. Corporations do this all the time. Perhaps the Court is using a similar approach here?

[Armchair]

"The Justices in the tariff case seemed uninterested in whether the current situation is actually an emergency or not."

That's a dark hole to go down. If the Justices rule it "not an emergency", then every future and past "emergency" makes it's way back to the SCOTUS, as people try to argue "it's not really an emergency, and the SCOTUS should overrule the POTUS and throw out the decision".

There are 48 current "National Emergencies" in the United States. This includes items like the sanctions on Iran due to the Iran Hostage Crisis. Is the Iran Hostage Crisis "still" an Emergency? Or Clinton's 1994 "Emergency" on WMD proliferation. Is that "still" an Emergency? Was it an "emergency" even when it was created? What about Clinton's Emergency "Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers"

So, your argument is going to be "none of these are really emergencies, and they should all be overturned." But then you have to ask, if they aren't emergencies, are there lawsuits? What about the export controls put into place? Are they instantly null?

Once you do this, you start unwinding mass areas of foreign policy put into place over 30+ years and multiple presidencies, and it all gets ugly fast.

Which is why "It's not an Emergency"...isn't going to be on the table.

[Martinned]

There are 48 current "National Emergencies" in the United States.

Yes, and that is bonkers. It seems like a straightforward question of statutory construction and determination of facts, which the courts are perfectly capable of carrying out, whether any of those are really emergencies in the sense of the relevant statutes.

[Armchair]

" It seems like a straightforward question "

Yes...and no. You've got to think about the consequences. Let's take Clinton's WMD proliferation emergency. Arguably...it's not really an emergency. An emergency can be defined as a "sudden, serious, and often dangerous situation that requires immediate action." It simply combined two other "Emergencies" previously. It's been going on for more than 30 years. So...sudden?

But no court actually wants to overturn that. Because they do, and then maybe there's some WMD proliferation that results, and a city somewhere gets blown up. And it's the court's "fault". Because they couldn't just defer to the the President's argument that it was an emergency. Which, it ended up being.

[Martinned]

Courts let out dangerous criminals every day. It's not their job to worry about the possibility that the guilty guy they let go because of a 4th amendment violation will go on to commit more crime.

And the relevant question is not how an emergency can be defined in general, the relevant question is how Congress defined it (implicitly or explicitly) in a given statute. Just like a bee can be a fish, an emergency might well include some things that are very much not emergencies in the normal sense of the word.

[ducksalad]

Because they do, and then maybe there's some WMD proliferation that results, and a city somewhere gets blown up.

We shouldn't conflate declaring a particular emergency declaration fake with taking away the authority to make emergency declarations.

If a long term situation needs a long term action, Congress should create regular, permanent statutory implementation for that specific action. If they don't do that, it means that as a democracy we've made the decision that the action is not really necessary under the current facts. If something emerges later, then the Prez can declare a new emergency.

It's seems like we're losing sight of the whole purpose of "emergency" - something by definition unusual, unexpected, and temporary.

[ducksalad]

That's a dark hole to go down. If the Justices rule it "not an emergency", then every future and past "emergency" makes it's way back to the SCOTUS, as people try to argue "it's not really an emergency, and the SCOTUS should overrule the POTUS and throw out the decision"
...
Once you do this, you start unwinding mass areas of foreign policy put into place over 30+ years and multiple presidencies, and it all gets ugly fast.

Seriously, are these such bad things? Don't you yourself believe there are huge parts of what the government has done over the last 30+ years that are just plain wrong?

I'd be very happy to review all the emergencies that have been declared. It's doesn't even have to some kind of some kind of bipartisan ceasefire. I'd be fine with Trump selectively declaring a bunch of Biden emergencies fake, and the next Democrat that gets elected returning the favor. Even better if Republicans as a party repealed the statutes with emergency clauses that have been exploited by Democrats, and vice versa after the next election.

We need to have fewer emergency clauses in the law, zero clauses that don't have hard expiration dates, and harsher pushback when emergencies get declared.

[Commenter_XY]

I would think the AEA ruling by SCOTUS in May is another example of a structural change after the lower courts finish with the remands (assuming POTUS Trump is even in office.

[hobie]

The Supreme Court is addressing the legal questions of whether the president has the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and whether that delegation of power violates the nondelegation doctrine. They are not - nor should they be - trying to decide if anything is an emergency.

[Sarcastr0]

I disagree.

Statutory questions generally come before constitutional ones, and whether the President's actions fall within the text of the statute is a question of statutory construction.

[hobie]

Possibly. But there are just so many outrages to all this, I guess you have to pick one.

[David Nieporent]

Statutory questions generally come before constitutional ones, and whether the President's actions fall within the text of the statute is a question of statutory construction.

But again, SCOTUS didn't grant cert on that issue.

[Sarcastr0]

Yep.

I think they should have as a baseline matter of jurisprudence, but we are where we are.

[Josh R]

Wasn't the grant on whether the IEEPA authorized Trump to impose the tariffs? And doesn't that grant cover statutory construction?

[ducksalad]

They are not - nor should they be - trying to decide if anything is an emergency.

Actually, we need to get to where emergencies are considered matters of fact, and whoever declares them is expected to make a case that is at least plausible and can be tested in the usual ways we resolve factual disputes, e.g. court cases.

There's a decent argument that courts shouldn't be doing stuff like preliminary injunctions to block emergency declarations, after all, it might really be an emergency needing immediate action.

However, when an emergency declaration is going on indefinitely I see no reason why the courts can't, on a normal schedule and with all parties getting to fully make their case, adjudicate whether it's real and eventually, after all the appeals have been exhausted and the judgment is final, end the emergency some years after it started.

What's the big problem with that?

[SRG2]

FWIW I expect that Thomas will argue that some other statute gives Trump the authority so that it doesn't matter what the IEEPA says and whether there's an emergency.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, checking out this DHS Spokes-Babe Tricia McLaughlin, she can inspect my Bill of Lading anytime!

[hobie]

Does all the MAGA women looking like Tammy Fae Baker these days excite you, Frankie?

[Mr. Bumble]

Get new glasses.

[hobie]

I guess one needs beer goggles these days to see through all the pancake.

[Martinned]

Point of comparative politics:

Now that the final results of the Dutch parliamentary election are in, we can tally up how many members have been elected who have never sat in parliament before. A list of recent elections. (Note that the lower house, which is what we're talking about here, has 150 members in total).

- 2017: 71 new members
- 2021: 68 new members
- 2023: 80 new members
- 2025: 55 new members

So the turnover in this election is lower than it has been in the previous three elections, but it's still more than a third.

In the US, on the other hand: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/09/some-members-of-congress-have-been-there-for-decades-but-seats-typically-change-hands-more-frequently/

(My sense is that most other democracies are somewhere inbetween. Losing something in the range of a third to half of MPs every couple of years is unusual, but so is a single-digit turnover rate per election.)

[Swede425]

There are many videos on the youtubes stating that the 30-06 rifle cartridge is obsolete and that there are "better" cartridges available for whitetail hunting.
And while I agree that there are some other, superb, cartridges available, I find it laughable that the 30-06 is "obsolete".
I hunt in Michigan, in the North Woods, with a Marlin 336 chambered in 30-06. I've killed a few deer in my time. None of my shots have been past 100 yards. I think the 30-06 is ideal for the heavily wooded conditions I hunt in. It's not what I consider a "distance" round. It wouldn't be my choice for large, open fields or alpine type hunting. But the argument has been made that this particular caliber has killed more whitetail than any other. And I think that will continue for a long time yet.

[Bunny495]

The 30-06 was introduced before WWI and the .308 after WWII so even with a lower population in the past it probably has killed more deer. The .308 has the advantage of lower cost and a short action which results in better accuracy, less recoil, and ease of handling. Both are very similar in BC with a slight edge to the 30-06.

Bottom line is the .308 is cheaper to shoot and more options for ammunition that is easier to find in a short action platform with less recoil and is easier to handle in the bush.

[hobie]

Trump: "We're going to issue a dividend to our middle income people and lower income people of about $2,000,"

" ...and we're gonna take some of that tariff money and give it to our farmers."

Giving money from the haves to the moochers. Did the Mango Mamdani just stupid himself into socialism?

[Commenter_XY]

Pay down the national debt. Nevermind the bribe dividend.

[Michael P]

That would be a much, much better use of the money.

[SRG2]

You and XY must really hate the BBB for what it will do to the Federal deficit

[hobie]

Next up in the MAGAverse: Now we're all for student debt relief!

[wvattorney13]

To pay down debt one must stop taking on further debt. This is what is missed in this talking point.

[David Nieporent]

1) Tariffs haven't raised nearly as much as would be needed.

2) Even the limited sums that tariffs have raised is not available, since it was already spent. If your monthly household income is $8,000, but your monthly household expenses are $9,000, then if you get a second job that pays $500/month, that doesn't constitute a bonus $500 you can give to your kids as an allowance; it just reduces the actual budget deficit you are incurring.

3) I don't think even the senile guy in the oval office actually thinks this is real; he is just teeing up a "I wanted to give you $2,000 but the meanies at the Supreme Court blocked me from doing so" campaign ad.

[Sarcastr0]

I remember when news outlets posted every Trump tweet since everything the President says is newsworthy.

Now no one pays much attention at all, even in MAGA. The ones posting Trump are doing so solely to note he's off his rocker.

[hobie]

$400,000 home loan at 6% interest

Monthly Payment:
30 year: $2398
50 year: $2105

Total interest:
30 year: $463,352
50 year: $863,371

[Moderation4ever]

I am in my late 60s and own my home. I bought my first home In the in my late 20s, starting with a 30 year loan and ending with a 15 year loan. My home was paid off in my early fifties. Today the average person buys their first house at 40. With a fifty year mortgage they would be in their 90s before the house is paid off. At retirement what they think is their nest egg would not even be half paid off. The fifty year mortgage is a joke and the President is not mentally aware enough to even realize that fact. Like injecting bleach to stop COVID he has little reality about the real world.

[Armchair]

$400,000 home loan at 6% interest and 20 years.

Monthly payment: $2865
Total interest: $287,772.

[hobie]

Can I interest you in some mansions for $40,000 each? There is a caveat though...

[Josh R]

Aren't interest rates usually lower for shorter time periods (less risk)?

[DDHarriman]

Did anyone see the "Epstein emails" release by the Democrats?

lmao, pathetic. After all this time, that's all they got? A bunch of insinuations and oblique references?

lmao 3 emails that's IT.

hahahahahaha so fucking funny most hurt? All the Lefty retards on this board.

[Michael P]

What do the Democrats have to hide by not releasing the real Epstein material, to coin a question?

[Moderation4ever]

Well likely know soon after Adelita Grijalva is seated in the House.

[jb]

Do the House Democrats have the full files? I thought they were predominantly with the DOJ. If the Democrats could just release the files themselves, presumably Massey's discharge petition (which is supported by basically all Democrats int he House) wouldn't be necessary.

[hobie]

Oversight Committee: "under Dr. Tanisha Hall, the warden of Federal Prison Camp (FPC) Bryan, the federal law enforcement staff working at the camp have been waiting on Ms. Maxwell hand and foot..."...the Committee also indicates that Ghislaine Maxwell is working on filing a “Commutation Application” with the Trump Administration"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

An interactive map allowed people to determine who voted for the top three NYC mayoral candidates basically by a block-by-block & neighborhood by neighborhood approach.

My immediate six-block area voted for Cuomo, while it was between two areas that voted for Mamdani. Nice little time waster.

A bit of local democracy. For the second time in two years, the city council position changed political control. Name recognition did not help the incumbent Republican. Her campaign signs were repeatedly found in the neighborhood. She lost all the same.

The vote for mayor was higher as a whole this year than it was for over fifty years. It was around 40% of the registered voters. The vote for the Bronx was closer to 30%.

Doing a quick deep dive via Wikipedia, that seems to be about the vote total for my local city council race. The primary that first brought AOC also involved a small fraction of the vote.

One more tidbit. Curtis Sliwa did not share some of the policies of the Conservative Party (he had his own third-party line involving animals). Someone else who is not a member of the party was put in as a placeholder. Special permission (under an old law) has to be obtained to do that. I didn't check the exact details.

Third parties for mayor other than Cuomo received, as a whole. around 1% of the vote, and that is tossing in write-ins.

[jb]

"Third parties for mayor other than Cuomo received, as a whole. around 1% of the vote, and that is tossing in write-ins."

Do we have break outs for how third parties did where the major party candidate was also on the third party line? (i.e., how did Sliwa do on his weird animal party line, but more interestingly, what fraction of Mamdani's vote was Democrat vs. Working Families?)

[Moderation4ever]

While the big story last week was the Democrats victory in NYC, NJ, VA, and CA, smaller election the Democrats won in GA and MI may be more telling. These represented gains that had not happened in many years. In smaller races with less money involved the Democrats win suggests a better message going into the 2026 midterms.

[loki13]

For those of you following the case involving the shooting of US Citizen Marimar Martinez in Chicago, I have shocking news for you.

The DOJ? They lied. Again. The Court .... just doesn't believe all the shifting stories, testimony, and affidavits produced by the government that contradict each other- things like, "I drove the evidence (car) to Maine because it's my personal vehicle" to "It's actually a government vehicle," to "I asked that it be repaired," to "I didn't ask for repairs, it just happened, and there weren't repairs," and so on.

Also, the DOJ told the judge that there were no repairs to the car, then there were, then ... the stories keep changing.

They lie. They lie. They lie.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Grijalva's swearing-in is expected to be among the first actions by House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who had previously declined to seat her until the chamber reconvened following a deal to end the government shutdown. The official ceremony is set for 4 p.m. EST, shortly before the House is expected to begin voting.

(Boston 25 News online)

Perhaps somewhat related ...

Epstein Alleged in Emails That Trump Knew of His Conduct
In a message obtained by Congress, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein wrote that Donald J. Trump spent hours at his house with one of Mr. Epstein’s victims. [NYT]

https://archive.ph/Cnf3c

[hobie]

MAGA: "Now we really don't want to see the Epstein files!"

The delicious part in all this is that it is an entirely MAGA-created crisis

[LawTalkingGuy]

Ken Paxton, a thief and serial cheater, thinks it’s “evil and wicked” for a local government to give grants to organizations that provide legal defense to immigrants in deportation proceedings. He’s suing to stop it under god knows what theory.

Christ what an asshole. Like what a truly bad person who is a disgrace to the legal profession. If you don’t like the idea of people facing legal action having lawyers and that it’s actually evil and wicked for them to have them, you shouldn’t be one yourself.

But in addition to being the sign of an asshole, it’s also a sign of being a little bitch. This is a profession for confident people who like a challenge. Not bitch-ass losers who cry at minimal scrutiny of their positions.