Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[thesafesurfer]

The complete and utter disgrace of judges Jeffrey Brown and David Guaderrama in the Texas redistricting decision threatens to destroy the judiciary in the United States. The dissent by Jerry Smith is damning and demands immediate action by the United States Supreme Court.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's time for wholesale pro-forma impeachments of Federal judges.

And SCOTUS might just toss the VRA...

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's time for wholesale pro-forma impeachments of Federal judges."

To be followed by wholesale pro-forma acquittals in the Senate?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Judges have bigger egos than Generals -- having to actually defend themselves will deflate a lot of egos, and I suspect that there will be some "Biden moments" leading to not all being acquitted.

But most importantly, it will make the point that these judicial fiats are political, not legal.

[David Nieporent]

The judges do not in fact "have to actually defend themselves" against nakedly political meritless impeachments. The impeachment process isn't a criminal trial; the targets can just ignore it if they want. There aren't 67 votes to convict them.

[wvattorney13]

That's certainly tradition. Although since we are just throwing around ideas, the Senate could make the judge or justice stand in the well of the Senate--in a dock---and punish him/her with contempt if refused.

[mulched]

Boasberg's the only one that's even a possibility. He's only possible because he rubber-stamped spying on US senators. He won't get convicted because he made the smart career choice of only going after senators of one party.

So no one's getting convicted in an impeachment trial unless Boasberg figures out how to piss off 14 Senate Democrats.

[not guilty]

"Boasberg's the only one that's even a possibility. He's only possible because he rubber-stamped spying on US senators. He won't get convicted because he made the smart career choice of only going after senators of one party."

Wrong. There was no "spying on US senators," and Judge Boasberg did not authorize any such. He approved subpoenas for collection of metadata from some Senate office telephones, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). That is not "spying", and no content of any conversation was intercepted. It was not a search or a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. See, Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).

The controversy is whether the judge's direction to the service provider not to notify the Senate offices ran afoul of 2 U.S.C. § 6628(c). I haven't seen a pdf of any subpoena, so I don't know whether the subpoenas do or do not qualify as "legal process seeking disclosure of Senate data of the Senate office that is transmitted, processed, or stored (whether temporarily or otherwise) through the use of an electronic system established, maintained, or operated, or the use of electronic services provided, in whole or in part by the Office of the SAA, the officer, employee, or agent of the Office of the SAA, or the provider for a Senate office."

But impeachment?? That is batshit crazy. As the late Clara Peller said on the Wendy's commercials, "Where's the beef?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0aKKFybRNM

[Dr. Ed 2]

As Gerry Ford said, "an impeachable offense is whatever a House majority says it is."

Mark Levin is pissed -- and that is relevant.

[not guilty]

How would you know that Mark Levin is pissed? When is he ever not in that condition?

[DrCoke]

Mark "THERE I SAID IT" Levin? Cranky? LOL

[Kazinski]

If the senate committee trying their case subpoenas them to testify they can ignore the subpoena?

I would like that if they did, then we could get a criminal trial.

[Sarcastr0]

I see the wishcasting tools are out in force trying to find ways to get at judges who don't lie flat for the regime.

[DDHarriman]

Haha yeah thats a perfectly accurate characterization of the criticism of these judges.

As they always call you, Sarcastr0 The Accurate!

[Martinned]

You mean the dissent that starts with a three page preliminary statement that is just whining about the other judges on the panel, and then pivots effortlessly to the most classic antisemitic dog whistle of the 21st century?

Judges on multi-judge courts understand how important is the deliberative process to fair and accurate judicial decisionmaking. As I say later in this dissent, judges get paid to disagree as well as to find common ground.
Judges in the majority don’t get to tell a dissenting judge or judges that they can’t participate. If the two judges on this panel get away with what they have done, it sets a horrendous precedent that “might makes right” and the end justifies the means.
The majority might even say “We don’t need to wait for your dissent and wouldn’t read it if we did.” Here, that sort of happened: The entry on the district court docket brings up only Judge Brown’s opinion; the reader has no access to this dissent without opening a separate, non-consecutive docket entry.
So this majority has “won” in terms of diminishing the impact of the dissent and the public’s access to it. In the interest of justice, one can hope it is only a Pyrrhic victory.
When I was a newer on the bench, a friend asked me, “Now that you’ve been a judge for a few years, do you have any particular advice?” I replied, “Always sit with your back to the wall.”
* * * * *
DISSENT
The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law.

https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/gov.uscourts.txwd_.1150387.1439.0.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

What was the antisemitic dog whistle? Not being a dog, I didn't hear it.

It seems a valid complaint. I've never seen a case entry where the dissent wasn't as easy to reach as the majority opinion, have you? I thought this was just standard practice.

True, the dissent has no legal impact, not being the majority opinion, but it does seem an entirely pointless hostile gesture on the majority's part to have not even pretended that there was any point of Smith being on the court.

[Martinned]

There is absolutely no reason to mention George Soros other than to say "look, a global Jewish cabal that secretly controls the world!"

[santamonica811]

Yeah, I'm also at a loss to explain why George Soros was just thrown into the opinion, other than as a dogwhistle to anti-Semites. Brett, you're pretty creative. Why do *you* think the dissent picked that particular person out as one of the two big winners, out of our population of 350,000,000 people? (My own assumption is that the big winners are the almost-half of Texas voters who would have been screwed by the proposed gerrymandering, and the half of American voters, nationwide, who will be at less risk of having a few powerful people in DC and Texas skew the next election.)

At least the dissent didn't pick out as a winner some Mr. Jewie Jewerson Jewiwitz. I'll give the dissent credit for being more subtle than that.

[Brett Bellmore]

George Soros wasn't just thrown into the dissent; the judge went on pretty extensively about how the litigation was really his litigation via front groups and cutouts. He really in no way conceals his dislike of Soros and his causes.

But that's not a dog whistle for anything, it's open dislike of Soros, period.

OK, Soros is Jewish. So freaking what? Are people somehow not allowed to dislike Soros just because he's Jewish? Do you actually think if some Episcopalian did all the same things Soros does, they wouldn't be widely despised?

Being Jewish and a banker doesn't automatically immunize you against complaints about bad things you do!

[DDHarriman]

Being a Jew immunizes oneself from any criticism of bad behavior because of the "Holocaust"

[Nelson]

Holocaust in scare quotes? Really? Are you like Rob Misek and deny it happened?

[DDHarriman]

I'm sure something happened. It's the details that I'm skeptical of. Is there anything about any of the holocaust narrative that you're skeptical of, or do you accept it 100% whole cloth has told today?

[SRG2]

What details are you sceptical of? The number of Jews murdered? The causes of death? What?

[Ridgeway]

@SRG -- have you not engaged with a Holocaust denier online before? Once you have established that he is one (and DDH has provided more than enough evidence), further engagement is pointless, and just serves to needlessly validate them. Like wrestling with a pig, but in these cases it is a pig that also hates Jews.

[SRG2]

@Ridgeway: have you not engaged with a Holocaust denier online before?

I have indeed, going back to the old alt.revisionism newsgroup. I was just curious as to what the latest crop are like.

[DDHarriman]

I literally said I wss sure something happened just not aligned on some details.
Even the barest skepticism is too much for The Jew.

[grb]

DDHarriman : "Even the barest skepticism is too much for The Jew."

Is "The Jew" some particular font of all evil or the Platonic Ideal of evilness?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because it wasn't the only holocaust in the 20th Century -- nor was it the only holocaust of Jews -- the Pogoms come to mind.

It definitely happened, as did the Armenian genocide, Stalin, Pol Pot, Rhwanda, and what is happening to Christians today.

[SRG2]

Because it wasn't the only holocaust in the 20th Century

The term "holocaust" was not originally applied to genocides. As The Holocaust, it was specifically used for the genocide of European Jews, coined IIRC by Elie Wiesel. The later recycling and boradening of the term, back to lower case, is (in your case inadvertently) a propaganda tactic to diminish its impact.

[jimc5499]

That's pretty funny since Soros admits to helping the German Police identify Jews in his biography.

[David Nieporent]

He did not. You're a liar.

[Martinned]

He really in no way conceals his dislike of Soros and his causes.

What does the judge's dislike of a famous jew have to do with anything? Crazy idea, maybe the judge should just write an analysis of the legal issues of the case? (Which, incidentally, also doesn't involve Gavin Newsom in any way.)

[Glaucomatose]

George Soros wasn't just thrown into the dissent; the judge went on pretty extensively about how the litigation was really his litigation via front groups and cutouts. He really in no way conceals his dislike of Soros and his causes.

So you see, it’s just a secret conspiracy by a shadowy, all-controlling Jew. Nothing antisemitic about that!

[DDHarriman]

He provided the receipts of how this was a Soros lawsuit.

It's not a secret. It's not a conspiracy. It was a Soros lawsuit brought by his many front groups.

[Michael P]

People dislike Soros because he's a communist who hates liberty, not because he's a Jew.

Do you think that everyone who disagrees with Clarence Thomas is a racist?

[SRG2]

Soros is no communist - his Open Society is antithetical to it, and he funded anti-communist groups following the break-up of the USSR.

If you buy into an anti-Semitic stereotype, you're an anti-Semite.

[Michael P]

Lots of communists deny they are communists, and lots of professed communists apparently aren't real communists. True communism has never been tried, remember?

And I note that your only answer to my question indicts people like "not guilty" for using epithets like "Uncle Clarence Thomas".

[Joe_dallas]

MP - Ng's comments here demonstrates he is one of the most racists and anti-semite commentators posting here. He is also accuses other of the hate he openly displays - projection perhaps

[SRG2]

@Michael P: but when someone consistently expresses opinions that are antithetical to communism, and funds organisations that are opposed to communists, and has runs businesses whose operations are capitalist, then if you claim they're communist, one may question both your categorisation, and your motives for that categorisation.

I didn't answer your Thomas question because I was in a hurry. The answer is, no. However, if someone were to provide reasons for their disagreement that make little logical or factual sense but which would be consistent with racism, then yes. Singling out Soros and FAPP identifying him with anti-Semitic stereotypes and claiming he's a communist, yup, that's some good old-timey hatred of Jooz.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Joe_dallas. What anti-semitic comment do you claim that I have ever made? Please be specific.

If you've got bupkis, man up and say so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Soros is Jewish.
Soros is Hungarian.
Both are adjectives.

Saying that Soros sucks doesn't apply to Hungarians, why should it apply to Jews?

[Sarcastr0]

Secret conspiracies by a shadowy, all-controlling Hungarian aren't a longstanding trope.

[Poxigah146]

That's the American Jewish way. Use their outsized money and influence to propagate left-wing causes, all while claiming that Jewish values (tikkun olam) mandate these actions, and then attack anyone who notices it as "antisemitic."

Just like noticing that 55% of homicides are committed by a racial group that is 13% of the population is "racist."

[David Nieporent]

the judge went on pretty extensively about how the litigation was really his litigation via front groups and cutouts.

I can understand how such an insinuation would appeal to your conspiratorial mind, but that's not remotely what he actually showed. It was actually just that Soros gives a lot of money to liberal/Democratic causes, and therefore people who travel in those circles are frequently beneficiaries of his generosity. And of course people who travel in those circles were involved in this case. But there was nothing about Soros actually controlling this litigation.

He really in no way conceals his dislike of Soros and his causes.

Right, which is totally inappropriate for a judge, especially since the only legal question is whether the Texas legislature engaged in an illegal racial gerrymander.

Do you actually think if some Episcopalian did all the same things Soros does, they wouldn't be widely despised?

Yes! That's the whole point! He could have named any other major Democratic donor but chose the Jewish one. During the recent Heritage Foundation kerfuffle, Kevin Roberts went out of his way to denounce two investors in the porn industry (Pornhub and Onlyfans) by name. Coincidentally, even though the fund that owns Pornhub is owned by three people — Solomon Friedman, Rocco Meliambro, and Fady Mansour — Roberts only specified Solomon Friedman, the guy with the incredibly Jewish name, in his denunciation. (Just to be sure we got the point, Roberts also named Onlyfans' Leonid Radvinsky alongside Friedman. But no other members of the porn industry with less… ethnic names.)

[Kenneth Almquist]

The only docket entries that mention Soros are plaintiff’s exhibits. (A few Texas Republican Party officials are equal opportunity bigots, both racist and antisemitic.) None of the cites that Judge Smith uses to support his rantings about Soros are to the evidence presented by the parties. Instead, Smith appears to have searched the internet to find this material.

If the defendants had argued that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs were being funded with Jewish money, Judge Smith would have a reason to address the matter, though not a reason to agree with defendants. But defendants didn’t mention Soros, so Smith’s writings about Soros are 100% on him.

[David Nieporent]

Worse — as I noted (I think) yesterday — Smith whines that there are financial relationships between Soros and some of plaintiffs' experts, but then also rants that Brown didn't rely on those experts.

[DrCoke]

I have disliked Soros for as long as he's been politically active (to my knowledge). A few decades, I guess.

This is the first time I have heard that he is Jewish. Doesn't matter to me. I only know him as a billionaire who's in the habit of financing things I happen to hate. Like gun control, for starters.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Cotdam you are a fvcking moronic tool

[thesafesurfer]

If you read the entire dissent you would understand exactly why that phrase was included because it was specifically explained. Willfully uninformed is a poor life choice.

[Martinned]

If this guy stops writing judicial opinions in the style of Breitbart opinion columns, maybe the other judges will let him play in their sandbox. Either way, there is no reason to fill three pages of the F.3d with this whiny nonsense.

[David Nieporent]

3 pages? That's just the preliminary tantrum. There are 104 pages of insane rambling, during which Soros's name is mentioned seventeen times even though he is not a party to the case.

Every lawyer has faced a situation in which his adversary has pissed him off so much that he writes a long, fiery, insulting, unprofessional response… and then, feeling a bit better having gotten it out of his system, deletes said response without sending it, and composes a more measured one. Only… Judge Smith forgot to do that here. He actually published the tantrum.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not going to argue that the dissent should have looked like this. (Though I think he was claiming that Soros really WAS the party, only using cutouts to conceal it.) Only that he's got a valid complaint about it being buried the way it was.

Suppose the 6 conservatives on the Court started holding sessions without the 3 liberals present, and then after the opinion issues, publish the dissent separately from the majority opinion, so it's hard to find.

The three are going to lose anyway, so no big deal?

[Martinned]

George Soros is 95 years old. He's apparently "in good health", but more in the relative sense of "not bed ridden".

https://pagesix.com/2025/06/16/society/george-soros-absent-from-son-alexs-wedding-to-huma-abedin/

[DDHarriman]

It's amazing what adrenochrome can do to these vampires.

[Ridgeway]

What is the current line on whether this was a joke or not?

[Ridgeway]

Right now I'd put it at +700 that he is not joking.

[DDHarriman]

Those are the best kind...

[David Nieporent]

It is in fact exactly as easy to find the dissent as the majority opinion. Either one takes exactly one click from the docket.

And as for your hypothetical, what do you think all those shadow docket rulings are? In many of them, the majority doesn't even bother to issue a reasoned ruling at all, but just votes to give Trump a win.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- How many times has a dissent become ruling law in a later decision....

[Reallynotbob]

Except this is conservative-on-conservative violence. Judge Brown is a Trump appointee.

[JohnSmith97]

Souter was put on the supreme court by an (R). his record indicates that he was more of a (D).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He tosses in an early comment, in effect apologizing for not having a more polished dissent, because the writer of the majority opinion allegedly rushed to complete his. I am unclear on why he could not have waited to release his dissent, refining it further.

Well, not really, but yes, he could have waited and tossed out the tantrum dissent. That is what various people manage to do. Write something that is in effect a "vent," and realize it isn't proper for official use. He went another way.

As Rick Hasen noted, in the process, any actual serious argument he has (which might be mixed in with the vitriol) will be more likely dismissed. SCOTUS conservatives might be inclined to support him. Now people like Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett might feel more embarassed about it.

[David Nieporent]

I am unclear on why he could not have waited to release his dissent, refining it further.

Because his dissent was a drunken cert petition, and if he waited it might not have served that purpose.

[thesafesurfer]

David claimed there are 57 Muslim majority countries with separation of church and state and then posts about "insane ramblings." You can't make up this level of textbook projection.

[David Nieporent]

I did not claim any such thing.

[Frank Drackman]

Whiny Nonsense? You just described the sum of all your posts on this Blog.
Now for something people might actually be interested in (well me anyway)
Do you Belgians eat Belgian Waffles much? or are you like the people who live in DC and never go to the Smithsonian??

Frank

[Glaucomatose]

They just cal them “waffles.”

[Riva]

No, a dissent that highlights the gross procedural misconduct, legal errors and bad faith of Judge Brown’s ruling which disregards the primary direct evidence that definitively shows that the Texas map was redrawn for partisan reasons in favor of improper inferences from mostly unconvincing circumstantial evidence. Brown is a disgraceful example of a judicial activist. In a reasonable world, he would be removed from the bench for bad behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy fuck not just evidence, primary direct evidence!

Did you notice how your comment didn't engage with the issues raised in the comment your replied to, and could have been spit out by an LLM asked to defend the dissent?

Why are you like this?

[Riva]

The dissent was more than three pages. I respond by hightlighting the main egregious errors of Brown's ruling. Yes, direct evidence of racial intent would be most relevant in this case. There was none. If you have an issue with what I note, respond to it. You fail to enage honestly with anything in my response and attempt to distract with pathetic insults.

Why are you like this? I'll answer. Because you're a leftist POS pseudo marxist clown with no interest whatsover in engaging in a reasonable exchange. Like most of the trolls here. We're done now. Go away.

[not guilty]

"The dissent was more than three pages. I respond by hightlighting the main egregious errors of Brown's ruling."

You lie, Riva. Your comment to which Sarcastr0 responded stated:

No, a dissent that highlights the gross procedural misconduct, legal errors and bad faith of Judge Brown’s ruling which disregards the primary direct evidence that definitively shows that the Texas map was redrawn for partisan reasons in favor of improper inferences from mostly unconvincing circumstantial evidence. Brown is a disgraceful example of a judicial activist. In a reasonable world, he would be removed from the bench for bad behavior.

That is all ipse dixit blather that doesn't cite a word, nor even a syllable, from Judge Brown's opinion.

[Riva]

Perphaps you would care to outline for the class all that direct evidence of racial intent on the part of Texas legislators?

[Sarcastr0]

I hope he doesn't.

Make you read the opinion, if you want to look like less of a bot.

[Riva]

Kinda funny how all those defending this judicial disgrace can't actually explain it. But you are just another POS troll so I wouldn't expect anything from you anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

Won't != can't.

You *won't* read the opinion. I *won't* explain it to you.

If there are so many trolls on here, why do you keep coming back?

[Riva]

I've explained in comments in this thread that there is no direct evidence of any racial motivation on the part of Texas legislators, that Brown essentially disregarded key testimony from the drawer of the map that proved the motiviations were partisan gain, and that the judge improper relied on dubious circumstantial evidence and inferences notwithstanding that the plaintiffs grossly failed in their burden to show any racial motivations to prove their claims.

You, on the other hand, just continue to troll like the piece of shit clown that you are. Fuck off.

[JohnSmith97]

I guess your dept. didn't reopen yet? Or do you just do so little in your gov't job that you can just post all day long?

At least during the shutdown we all knew why you were posting all day long.

[not guilty]

"Perphaps [sic] you would care to outline for the class all that direct evidence of racial intent on the part of Texas legislators?"

Riva, my comment was not about the opinion. It was about your comment wherein you claimed that you had "hightlight[ed] the main egregious errors of Brown's ruling."

You plainly and simply did not do that.

[Riva]

You plainly and simply did not read either the ruling or the dissent, yet you persist in commenting.

[not guilty]

No, I have not read either the majority opinion in full nor any part of the dissent.

I have read your comments, which without more show you to be lying. I was talking about what you said, not what the judges said.

[Joe_dallas]

Since data is readily available for voting patterns at the precinct level, the use of race as the proxy to create gerrymandered districts has become obsolete.

[JohnSmith97]

Only Alabama is required to use race in redistricting. Everyone else is expected to follow the endless court rulings that explain why you can't use race.

[Joe_dallas]

Massive amounts of hype in both the opinion and the dissent each alleging lots of enfarious reasons for the redistricting and lots of enfarious reasons to stop the redistricting.

That being said, the comparison of the 2021 & 2025 maps posted in the majority opinion show substantially less geographical gerrymandering in the 2025 maps than the 2021 maps. Less geographical gerrymandering typically means reduced effective gerrymandering.

[Riva]

There was voluminous testimony on the record by the actual drawer of the Texas map, essentially ignored by Brown, that pretty much definintively showed that the map was drawn for partisan purposes. There was zero direct evidence of a racial motive on the part of legislators. Brown relied on inferences and dubious circumstantial evidence. He's a disgrace.

[Joe_dallas]

I plan on reading the opinion and dissent at lunch. My brief skim of both seems both rely on lots of hype. The DOJ letter that the majority relies on to claim race was the primary factors states to the effect that Texas could not use race, So at first impression, there are a lot of disputed facts.

As noted above, there is substantially less geographical gerrymandering which is typically an indication of less racial gerrymandering.

[Riva]

Deleted

[David Nieporent]

Don't get my hopes up.

[Riva]

Only a world class asshole would respond obnoxiously to a deleted comment.

[thesafesurfer]

You should try reading the entire dissent before commenting. Just a thought.

[Commenter_XY]

The kids are not alright (in the Old Dominion).

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-school-that-expelled-jews-after-antisemitic-bullying-apologizes-in-settlement/

[Frank Drackman]

But they're "Gifted"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If the article is correct, this private school practiced anti-Jewish discrimination, by expelling Jewish students for the "crime" of their parents' protesting anti-Semitic harassment.

I would have preferred that the school simply coughed up a bunch of m money to compensate the victims.

Instead, there's a settlement in which the government forces curriculum revisions beyond what the antidiscrimination law requires. Specifically, the school will add specific components of anti-racism training to the curriculum.

Allowing this sort of forced curricular change will be a pleasing precedent for the woke forces. Although the woke won't like the idea of acknowledging anti-Semitism as a problem, they *will* like the idea of forced curricular revision - which in other settlements will probably include things like gender-ideology propaganda, critical race theory, and the like.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I put together a course on the American Revolution for next semester, I am struck on just how similar we are today to the situation in 1775.

We have an autocratic establishment and a populist base that is increasingly alienated.

[Martinned]

I highly doubt that you've suddenly seen the light, so I suspect you are (as usual) very confused about both the situation today and the situation in 1775. But who knows? Care to elaborate?

[santamonica811]

I'm with Ed on this one. Ed's pointing out that Trump is an authoritarian, and has set up an autocratic govt (and molded a compliant Supreme Court) to let him run said government. Ed is also pointing out that his followers are largely populists (plus former conservatives who have whored their morals and ethics), and that these followers are feeling increasingly alienated.

I find it hard to disagree with Ed on this general observation. (His usual breathless predictions about upcoming armed rebellion, insurrection, blood on the streets, etc etc . . . well, that's just Ed being Ed.)

[Frank Drackman]

77,302,580 voted for "45/47/(48?)" he carried 31 states and part of Maine (The Sane in Maine reside Mainly in the 2d District), including all of the "Swing" States (I prefer Progressive Rock)
OK, yes, Cums-a-lot received 75,017,613 votes, which is 75,017,613 votes more than she got in the DemoKKKrat Primary.

[DDHarriman]

I love how caring for the people and not the elite, aka populism, is now a dirty word among the Dem's.

[Martinned]

That's certainly one definition of "populism". Not a commonly used definition, mind, but definitely your definition.

[DDHarriman]

Weyland, K. (2001). Clarifying a contested concept: Populism in the study of Latin American politics. Comparative Politics, 34(1), 1–22.

Weyland defines populism as “a political strategy through which a personalistic leader seeks or exercises power based on direct, unmediated, uninstitutionalized support from large numbers of followers.”

The people vs. the elites. Which is why it's an anathema for the Left as they always wish to rule because they believe they are the only ones pure Golden Hearts who can govern with love and kindness (which of course means mass murder and human suffering --- historically speaking).

[Martinned]

We can talk about whether that's a good definition, but let's just start by noting that it's a million miles away from "caring for the people".

[David Nieporent]

Um, there are plenty of left wing populists. It's anathema to actual conservatives — which of course MAGA is not — though. Have you ever read heard of Burke?

[Bob from Ohio]

Burke was a Whig.

"actual conservatives"

I always look to a man who has voted for Libertarian pres candidate for30 years to determine who are actual conservatives

[Sarcastr0]

You don't need to be a conservative to understand what conservativism is.

And you, gatekeeping fucking *Burke* sure as hell do not understand what conservativism is.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Being anti-Burke to own Russell Kirk and Roger Scruton? I guess?

[Bob from Ohio]

Burke was still a Whig. A liberal by the standards of the day.

Being right on the French Revolution does not make him a conservative.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean if you want to voluntarily associate yourself with conservatism and then associate conservatism with being pro-slavery be my guest. I won't stop you.

[Sarcastr0]

Burke's famous for more than calling the French Revolution. And for more than being a Whig.

'A liberal by the standards of the day' is an incoherent mess of past political coalitions and very different present political coalitions, all in an attempt to pretend political moral philosophy isn't a thing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Burke's famous for more than calling the French Revolution. And for more than being a Whig. "

Did I say otherwise? Fame does not make you a conservative.

[David Nieporent]

Fame does not make you a conservative.

Edmund Burke is considered the father of modern conservatism by people who, you know, know how to read. (Which, ironically, leaves out modern conservatives.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto -- Burke supported the American Cause...

[thesafesurfer]

Have you ever been taken seriously by anyone?

[Nelson]

Populism has always been a dirty word. Rule by bigotries, hatreds, and grievances is a terrible thing. If you are always looking to make those you hate suffer, you never improve anything. You only destroy.

[DDHarriman]

Historically speaking, which societies have produced more human suffering? Societies with ideals like mine (Capitalism, individualism, human flourishing, freedom and liberty) , or societies with ideals like yours (Collectivism, top down State control, violent Narrative Minders)?

[SRG2]

Historically speaking, capitalism, individualism, human flourishing, freedom and liberty have not been characteristics of populist government.

[Martinned]

ideals like mine (Capitalism, individualism, human flourishing, freedom and liberty)

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence!

[David Nieporent]

Um, as Ayn Rand said, racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.

[thesafesurfer]

Racism is the unifying principle of your Democrat Party. There is little doubt that Democrats like you carry a pocket color palette from Home Depot to whip out and categorize every human being you meet by the pigment of their skin.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what a "Democrat Party" is, but I believe that my vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 is the only time I have voted Democratic. (I was a registered Dem for many years, solely out of inertia, but I registered as a Republican in 2016 to vote against Trump in the primaries, and have been registered as such ever since.)

In short, "Democrats like you" is a nonsensical phrase.

[Riva]

Assholes from the democrat party are really quite emotionally on this topic I see. Good to know. I'll work it into more responses.

[Riva]

"In short, 'Democrats like you' is a nonsensical phrase."

Maybe he should have written "Democratics like you"? Is that what you're looking for asshole?

[not guilty]

Referring to the "Democrat Party" is a reliable indicator of the speaker/writer's boorishness and questionable literacy.

I don't understand why those who use that phrase think that use of non-standard English is persuasive. Finley Peter Dunne had panache enough to do so with his Martin Dooley character, but Joe McCarthy, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh (all of whom popularized the slur) are nowhere near of that caliber.

[Riva]

Well you can't ask non capitalist societies. They usually murder any dissenters.

[Riva]

Actually democrats rely primarily on envy for their exploitation. And they are actually quite disdainful of the unwashed "baskets of deplorables" out there.

[Voize of Reazon]

Appealing to the basest instincts and prejudices of the public, aka demagoguery, has always been a dirty word.

[David Nieporent]

It was a dirty word among the founders of the country, too. The American revolution was very different than the French revolution.

[DDHarriman]

The Left's ideologies stem from the French Revolution.
The Right's ideologies stem from the American Revolution.

Just the facts, ma'am.

HTH

[David Nieporent]

The Right's ideologies stem from the American Revolution.

Not anymore. MAGA are Jacobins.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is more of a John Hancock.
I was comparing judges to the British.

[Nelson]

“ As I put together a course on the American Revolution for next semester”

Given your consistent inability to grasp factual realities and your obsessive fantasizing about another Civil War, I dearly hope that you are doing this as an intellectual exercise (using the term very loosely) and aren’t actually employed to teach students. No one should be abused like that.

[Mr. Hook]

No, "Dr" Ed doesn't teach students except perhaps in his head. But, damn, it would be mouth-agape entertainment to sit in and listen as he rambles along, telling students to remember things that never happened; invoking the Weimar Republic to explain the Stamp Act, the Battle of Greensboro, and de Crèvecoeur's experiences during the war; and sharing his views on the sexual habits of minors.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is that a challenge?
You do know King George was from Hanover, right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Only in Amherst (Berkley East):
The Rich White Trannies gang up on the Black Christian women.
I'm running out of popcorn watching this....

https://www.amherstindy.org/2025/11/15/a-call-to-action-lgbtqia-caucus-responds-to-the-reinstatement-of-delinda-dykes/

[Bunny495]

Lesbians against Dykes sounds like something from Babylon Bee

[Dr. Ed 2]

That really is her name.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

My ex-wife's OBGYN was named Dykes

[Martinned]

Have you all signed the petition yet against the evil Mamdani plan to require New York City schools to teach arab numerals?

[Krayt]

Get with the zero!

[santamonica811]

LXXXVI XLVII

Or, as Trump unfortunately said about E. Jean Carroll, "Vidi, vici. Veni"

[Frank Drackman]

My favorite Roman Numeral is LXIX

[TwelveInchPianist]

Apparently, that's passe, LXVII is all the rage among the kids now.

[Reallynotbob]

Ha!

[SRG2]

Nice one! Did he pronounce the "v" as a "v" or as a "w"? 🙂

[santamonica811]

I'm old school. The v is a "w" sound. *Always,* in Latin. (And the "c" is *always* a hard "k" sound...not that you asked about that.) 🙂

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Is that how native Latin speakers do it?

[santamonica811]

Stella,
No idea about right now. Back in the 70s, when I did my 6 years of Latin, that was the standard. Back when John Paul was announced as Pope, the person announcing it did pronounce the V as a 'w.' I honestly have no idea what they are teaching in today's Latin classes in American classrooms. And I have no idea what the small handful of current native-Latin speakers use as a pronunciation guideline.

Here's what Google took me to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oWWOJW3948

[David Nieporent]

You botched the joke; it's Arabic numerals.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — You missed the dirty joke. Right above your comment. And it's a pretty good one.

[Martinned]

What do you mean joke?

https://x.com/Polymarket/status/1990424906299830481

[Martinned]

As for the grammar point, that's an interesting. According to the internet "Arab" refers to the people, and "Arabic" to the language. I think the numbers belong to the people, but I guess you could argue it both ways.

According to this explanation people usually talk about "Arabic numerals" as something that's grandfathered in, even though it doesn't follow the normal rule.

https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/17/arab-arabic-arabian/

[Krayt]

According to the internet "Arab" refers to the people, and "Arabic" to the language. I think the numbers belong to the people, but I guess you could argue it both ways.

According to the Internet, "Democrat" refers to the politicians, and "Democratic" refers to the nobility of The People voting, hence the sarcasm "The Democrat Party".

[Frank Drackman]

I've been to some A-rab Countries, how come their Arabic Numerals don't look like our Arabic Numerals?

[SRG2]

Many of them do, though orientated differently.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I think it would be great if they would start. Maybe colleges wouldn't have to deal with students unable to do math at a high-school level.

[DDHarriman]

Hey, everyone look Martinned here knows as much as an American government school high school senior!

[Martinned]

More, clearly.

[Frank Drackman]

"Through a glass darkly, the age old strife I see, Where I fought in many guises, Many names, but always me."
I thought Patton was quoting some famous Poet, but he wrote that himself, talented guy.
Patton, you know, the Amerikaner General, the guy you should thank everyday that you're not kneeling to some Gauleiter. Seriously, he's buried over there, go thank him for me.

Frank

[DDHarriman]

Well, our government schools have been run by Leftists for a generation so my cat knows more than the typical government educated American these days.

[Bunny495]

More accurately called the Hindu-Arabic numeral system because of its Indian origin and subsequent transmission and development by Arab scholars.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He's going to meet with Trump.

Trump reportedly (behind the scenes) acknowledges him as a "talented politician, calling him slick and a good talker" (sounds like a compliment coming from him).

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/nyregion/trump-mamdani-white-house-meeting.html

[Sarcastr0]

Given the reported Trump penchant for believing whatever the last person to talk to him said, for a brief shining moment after he meets with Mamdani Trump's gonna be a communist.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Twitter says Mamdani just needs to talk Broadway. See if he can gift him an original poster from Cats.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's quite a relief to know that Mamdani is such a harmless, mainstream politician whose policies provide no legitimate basis for criticizing him.

[Martinned]

These days any politician who isn't an active threat to US democracy and the rule of law is already pretty moderate by comparison.

[not guilty]

"Have you all signed the petition yet against the evil Mamdani plan to require New York City schools to teach arab numerals?"

Well played, old chap!

[apedad]

Florida woman spent 18 months in prison for threatening FBI. Trump pardoned her

Suzanne Ellen Kaye spent a year and a half in a prison cell for social media threats against FBI agents who were going to her home to question her back in 2021 about her possible involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Friday, well after Kaye completed her sentence, President Donald J. Trump pardoned her of the crime.

In January 2021, the FBI called Kaye, from Boca Raton, in hopes of interviewing her about her possible involvement in the Jan. 6 attack. The FBI’s national threats operation center had received an online tip. Kaye, it turns out, was not at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to court records. But before agents arrived at her home, Kaye posted three videos on her Facebook page, ANGRY Patriot Hippie. One was captioned “F*** the FBI,” and mentioned that agents wanted to meet with her, court records show. Then, she threatened to exercise her “second amendment right to shoot your f****** a**” if the FBI pulled up to her home.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article312931964.html

But try that today's against Trump's ICE and you'll end up in the pokey.

There are no legal standards under Trump; only double standards.

[ThePublius]

"But try that today's against Trump's ICE and you'll end up in the pokey."

I'm not following this comment. She 'tried it' under Biden and ended up in the pokey, isn't that so? Your statement seems to indicate that she didn't.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nope. His comment "indicates" that anyone who tries that under Trump won't get a pardon.

[DDHarriman]

Why would Trump be expected to pardon Democrat Antifa BAMN Domestic Terrorists?

[apedad]

Trump pardoned her because she's a Trump psychophant.

But he will send his goons against people who would do the same thing she did.

Double stadards.

[ThePublius]

Has he ever sent "his goons against people who would do the same thing she did?"

[Stephen Lathrop]

apedad, did you just hear a sea lion bark?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I love it how the left is now opposed to being asked to support their claims.

[Michael P]

They have feels and vibes. Isn't that enough?

[TwelveInchPianist]

He pardoned her after she did all her time.

I recall just last week many of the usual left-wing suspects here were claiming that a similar threat against a TPUSA member was not a "true threat". Maybe people should get more slack with respect to rhetorical threats, but as this case shows, that isn't really the case.

[DDHarriman]

These people complaining about this are out there firebombing ICE vehicles and terrorizing their families at their homes.

[not guilty]

I don't know whether apedad's "psychophant" was an intentional misspelling, but I'm borrowing it!

[Stephen Lathrop]

apedad — I am a bit surprised. It has seemed to me, without any systematic investigation, that folks who threaten, "second amendment remedies," and such-like violent impulses, get a lot of legal slack. I wonder if commenters here can cite other instances where threats of that sort have resulted in jail sentences.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no legal standards under Trump"

Clemency is an act of mercy, not law.

[not guilty]

"In January 2021, the FBI called Kaye, from Boca Raton, in hopes of interviewing her about her possible involvement in the Jan. 6 attack. The FBI’s national threats operation center had received an online tip. Kaye, it turns out, was not at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to court records. But before agents arrived at her home, Kaye posted three videos on her Facebook page, ANGRY Patriot Hippie. One was captioned “F*** the FBI,” and mentioned that agents wanted to meet with her, court records show. Then, she threatened to exercise her “second amendment right to shoot your f****** a**” if the FBI pulled up to her home." [Expurgation in original.]

It seems to me that those postings were First Amendment protected conduct -- no more of a true threat than Robert Watts's declaration:

"They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."

"They are not going to make me kill my black brothers."

Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 706 (1969).

[loki13]

I just finished reading the DOJ filings from yesterday in Comey.

The objections one is ... interesting. Mostly because it's usually not a good idea to attack the MJ so vociferously and bang the drum of how regular the grand jury proceedings were when you just had a hearing and conceded ... that they weren't. Moreover, it's especially weird that they specifically tried to make a big issue of the MJ pointing out the "void" in the transcript (you can't say that the absence of evidence is evidence wah wah wah) and drawing any conclusion that there was something weird from that, when the MJ's conclusion was that if the absence meant that the grand jury didn't receive a new indictment to deliberate over, that might be an issue ... which is exactly what the judge reviewing this motion learned at the hearing he had before receiving this objection. It's ... tone deaf.

Especially when you pair this with the DOJ's brief that was required after the hearing (re: multiple indictments etc. and Gaither). The argument regarding Gaither ... is not good. It almost seems like they didn't actually read or understand what Gaither did, or that the attorney who drafted it ever spoke to an attorney who knows the case. It doesn't even try and mention the prospective flat rule, instead discussing only the reasoning Gaither was using in this case and retrospectively. It's ... bizarre.

There is then a 1962 case (pre-dating Gaither). And a few cases that are not nearly the same, but mined for language that makes them look like they apply to this situation. Finally, it is notable that the "factual clarification" is a single paragraph that is ... notably devoid of facts and omits a lot of the actual facts, does not have citations to any transcripts or declaration, does not have an attached declaration, and tries to skirt the issues with questionable language (such as "revised" two count indictment)- and, more specifically, does not try to apply the actual facts to any of the cases to show how a specific case they have used is similar to the fact pattern here.

Again, this isn't to say that they will necessarily lose on these issues, but it's just ... it's rough. If I was one of the AUSAs pulled from out of state to come save Halligan's bacon, I would be seriously thinking about what this case is requiring of me and remember that there was a reason attorneys resigned rather than bring this case, and a reason why Halligan was on her on before the Grand Jury.

[loki13]

Interesting find (not by me)-

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18221326573527636639&q

The government argues that a timely indictment will toll limitations even if it is defective and fails to charge a crime. The Court disagrees. The Fourth Circuit has expressly held that a defective indictment confers no jurisdiction whatsoever upon the trial court. United States v. Hooker, 841 F.2d 1225, 1231-32 (4th Cir. 1988) (en banc); United States v. Pupo, 841 F.2d 1235, 1239 (4th Cir.1988) (en banc). Accordingly, a defective original indictment is simply a nullity. An invalid indictment which fails even to invoke the Court's jurisdiction clearly cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed. See United States v. Peloquin, 810 F.2d 911, 913 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that the mere filing of an indictment does not, by itself, toll the running of the statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3282).

United States v. Crystal Corp., 781 F. Supp. 375, 377-78 (D. Md. 1991).

In other words, in the Comey case if the indictment is found to be invalid it would appear that binding 4th Cir. law would require dismissal with no ability to re-file.

[Ridgeway]

Yeah -- this seems like a pretty easy question if (like here) the indictment is immediately challenged as invalid.

A tougher hypo would would be a situation where a defective indictment is filed/returned well within the SOL, but the defendant sandbags and waits to challenge it until after the SOL has lapsed. I have no idea how the rules on challenging the validity of an indictment work, and whether that would even be possible. But if it were, I could see a different result on the SOL question.

[loki13]

Oh, heck, I didn't even realize that this had happened-

https://nypost.com/2025/11/19/us-news/lindsey-halligan-fires-back-at-james-comey-judge-who-claimed-shes-a-puppet/

Really? Halligan gave an exclusive interview to the NY Post, and ... said that?

...I mean, I s'pose it's better than communicating with a journalist about a case for a long time, and then saying ... "Hey, all the prior stuff is off the record." You know, even the stuff where I say that someone else is using grand jury information, and then given you an example of what they got incorrect.

Um... anyway ... seriously? It's bad enough that she's speaking about the case and also attacking the judge. It's ... even worse that she doesn't seem to understand what the actual conversation was about. The judge was inquiring about a legal position- in other words, since this is an allegation of vindicative prosecution, was the animus from Trump or did Halligan "break" the animus, and if Halligan was the prosecutor, is Comey arguing that Halligan was merely effectuating Trump's will?

Which is why the question the judge asked Comey's attorney was, "So your view is that Ms. Halligan is a stalking horse or a puppet, for want of a better word, doing the President's bidding?"

Given the DOJ argued that it didn't matter if Trump had animus because Halligan exercised independent judgment, the Judge was trying to understand Comey's precise position. Which they gave in response to that question- the beginning of the response was "Well, I don't want to use language about Ms. Halligan that suggests anything other than she did what she was told to do."

[John 4]

The cult is steering clear of this topic.

[Sarcastr0]

Notably so.

Rare example of good judgement from the cult.

Except for TiP who tries below and...wow.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I’ve never heard of a litigant accusing a judge of violating the Canons of Judicial Conduct because the litigant disagrees with the judge’s ruling. My guess is that the district judge can’t, or at least won’t, ignore an accusation against a magistrate judge appointed by the district judge. If the magistrate judge’s decision were so egregiously wrong that the district judge would even consider referring the magistrate judge for disciplinary action, the district judge is obviously not going to uphold the magistrate judge’s ruling, so the litigant wins even if he doesn’t include accusations of judicial misconduct in his appeal. More likely, though, the district judge will write an analysis arguing that the magistrate judge’s ruling was based on the evidence presented, at least sufficiently so that a disciplinary referral is not warranted.

Now the district judge has to address the merits of the appeal itself. Having just written a defense of the magistrate judge’s opinion is probably going to make the district judge a little less open to arguments against it. Furthermore, overruling the magistrate judge’s ruling could be seen as ligitimizing in some way the accusations of misconduct. The magistrate judge, if not a friend of the district judge, is at least a colleague who the district judge wants to be on good terms with in the future. In short, accusing the magistrate judge of misconduct is bad lawyering because it makes it harder for the district judge to overrule the magistrate judge. This isn’t likely to change the district judge’s ruling, but I’d suggest that most rulings aren’t determined by the quality of the lawyering. Good lawyering is about improving the odds of winning cases that are very close calls.

[thesafesurfer]

It is satisfying to see how painful November 5, 2024 was for you.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Huh?

[David Nieporent]

Loki,

I assume you read the motion where they appealed the magistrate judge's order to the district judge, and repeatedly accused the former not merely of being wrong — that's inherent in an appeal, after all — but of violating the canons of judicial ethics by being wrong. WTF?

EDIT: I posted this before scrolling down and seeing Kenneth A addressing this.

[Armchair]

Gerrymandering - issues and signs - part 4.

One sign of Gerrymandering is the "distant representative". In our representative democracy, the rep is supposed to represent their district. Ideally, they will be centrally located and live in the type of environment that the majority of their district encompasses. This is illustrated best by Carson, in Indiana's 7th district or Messmer in Indiana's 8th.

But sometimes, you'll get long, twisted, gerrymandered districts. And then the rep will be "right" at the end of such a district, in an area that isn't really representative of the rest of the district. This is best illustrated by Maryland's 6th district...a largely poor and rural district with just a bit that reaches into the rich DC suburb of Potomac. And wouldn't you know Delaney (the 6th's Rep) is from Potomac. Or California's 2nd district, which stretches from the Oregon border, all the way down to the northern suburbs of San Francisco. And wouldn't you know, right at the tip, San Rafael....that where is the rep Huffman is from.

This tendency for a Rep to live "right" at the edge of a district is a sign of gerrymandering, and often means the rep isn't really representing the "district"...but a larger party instead.

[apedad]

These states have only one Representative.

Alaska
Delaware
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
Wyoming

I suppose the Alaska rep could set up an office in Coldfoot, AK.

Maybe in the Arctic Interagency Visitor Center located there!

[Pooblius]

Montana has 2 reps.

[Bunny495]

Before the recent redistricting the district I lived in stretched from the three universities in Tallahassee to a largely black area in Jacksonville and was over 200 miles East to West but at it's narrowest North to South only two miles. The rep was a black dem that lived in Tallahassee but many of the white areas in Tallahassee were excluded from the district.

The resulting new districts were polygons with a small number of sides and the dems sued and lost.

[ducksalad]

On the last paragraph: that's actually a sign that the gerrymandering was mainly to protect a specific incumbent, rather than benefit a party. And often those two goals conflict.

Also, I'm not buying this statement:

Ideally, they will be centrally located and live in the type of environment that the majority of their district encompasses.

I don't believe a whole lot of voters make their pick based on fewest miles from the centroid. And certainly not the voters that live far from the centroid. And while you aren't, I assume, suggesting that people living near the edges have a lesser right to run for office, it kind of comes off that way.

[Armchair]

"That's actually a sign that the gerrymandering "
Gerrymandering is still gerrymandering.

"I don't believe a whole lot of voters make their pick based on fewest miles from the centroid."
No, but many view the best representative as one that lives in the area they do, like they do. You could, in theory, have a Manhattanite representing NY-21 (North of Albany). But such a representative is far away and Manhattan isn't exactly like Plattsburg, and has different concerns.

[wvattorney13]

In my state, there is no requirement that the Rep. live in the district that he serves.

Do other states require this?

[ducksalad]

I thought there was some court ruling that they couldn't. The term limits case?

[Armchair]

Such a law is unconstitutional. For good reason. We could, for example, easily imagine our good Governor Gavin suddenly rearranging the boundaries of the districts ever so slightly, just to push out the current GOP representatives out of their district, in the middle of a cycle. And since they now were out of the district, they would be ineligible to vote in Congress, thus shifting it to a Democratic majority. At least till the next special election in CA.

[David Nieporent]

While this doesn't directly refute anything you say, note that there's no legal requirement that the representative live in the district at all. The constitution requires that the rep live in the state, but not the district.

[Armchair]

"While this doesn't directly refute"

Nor does it indirectly refute anything. We're talking about gerrymandering, which the Constitution says nothing about. Trust our paralegal in chief to "refute".

[apedad]

Lawmaker urges Maryland and Virginia counties to secede and join West Virginia

West Virginia state Sen. Chris Rose is renewing and expanding his push for conservative-leaning counties in Maryland and Virginia to break away from their states and unite with West Virginia — a campaign he has labeled “An Appeal to Heaven.”

On Tuesday, Rose announced on X that he was broadening his proposal to include additional counties in western Virginia.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/state/3892336/lawmaker-urges-maryland-virginia-counties-secede-join-west-virginia/

Oooooor . . . the mouthbreathers can just leave the Great State of Northern Virginia (and those lesser areas), and move to WV.

Country roads, take me home
To the place I belong
West Virginia, mountain mamma
Take me home, country roads

[DDHarriman]

I always joke around with the help that if I ever saw a Chicom column of tanks & infantry marching down my private little road going by my estate and farmland I would point them in the direction of NOVA and DC.

There's never been a greater threat to human freedom than the Democrat Deep State in all of human history.

[Brett Bellmore]

When I was in AFROTC back in the 70's, the joke going around was that the Soviet strategic bombing plan spared DC in order to slow down our recovery after a nuclear war.

[wvattorney13]

I'm getting old. I remember as a young adult WV was a heavily Democratic state and VA was hardcore Republican.

[loki13]

Latest in "This is Our Government, Now" news...

Remember how RFK jr. needed Cassidy's support to become Dr. Death? And how Cassidy spoke from the Senate floor, and said, "He has also committed that he would work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems, and not establish parallel systems. If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes. CDC will not remove statements on their website pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism."

Check out the CDC's website now!

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

I mean, technically true! Which is the best kind of true.*

*This statement is put in because due to an agreement with the Trump administration to call some of their lies that are only misleading as opposed to batshit insane "technically true."

[DDHarriman]

I notice how you only complained about the damage to The Narrative, and not the scientific facts presented to support any claims.

Cults do what cults do.

[Martinned]

Really? You're complaining about the absence of science in the analysis?

[Michael P]

What did the opening shot about "support to become Dr. Death" have to do with science?

I mean, yes, loki did use the word "autism" eventually, but he failed to lodge any substantive objection to what is on CDC's web site, much less one based on science.

[hobie]

You know how in Men In Black there was a tiny alien living in the head of some robot - operating it with levers and buttons? That's kinda how I picture the brainworm in Kennedy's head. It's also how I picture the Tylenol conspiracy getting telexed to his vocal chords.

[Michael P]

Yes, we knew you live in a fantasy land. I was asking Martinned, the guy who saw "science" in a ranty post that was mostly quoting an anodyne endorsement of loki's target.

[hobie]

From today's National Review:

Christians Should Defend the Jewish People

https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/11/christians-should-defend-the-jewish-people/

For decades I've been best friends with a guy who has been in the throes of a San Antonio televangelist for most of his life. They've been preaching Israel (be careful here, Israel not Jews) all these years. My friend has grown a huge beard, adopted a Hebrew name, and has made countless pilgrimages. Making sure that a perfect red cow (finally and recently achieved by a rancher in Alabama) has been made, that Jerusalem is made the capital, and that every last Jew is ushered straight into a biblical slaughter (like the gas chambers, a paragon of Christian absolutism and, if you ask me, the height of antisemitism). Israel, Israel, Israel ad nauseum.

It's like as if Islam was constantly elevating Hinduism over itself. So, yeah, it's no secret to anyone this Christian preoccupation of Israel. The difference between MAGA hayseeds and us Libs is you champion Israel, while we (and most American Jews) champion the Jewish people.

Like Mamdani (who is supported by the Jew who came in third in the primaries) has said numerous times:

""Antisemitism is not simply something that we should talk about — it's something that we have to tackle"

However, regarding the state of Israel has said: "I’m not comfortable supporting any state that has a hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion or anything else.”

[DDHarriman]

I'll defend Jewish people when the Jewish people defend Christians instead of spit on them, bomb their churches, and undermine their civilizations and societies.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out drinking your babies blood.

[DDHarriman]

I don't live in New York so I'm safe from those Jew tunnels where they do those Jew rituals and Jew traditions with Christian children.

[hobie]

One thing I'll credit Israel for, Frankie, is it being possibly the most progressive nation on the planet when it comes to gay and woman equality. In 1988 it outlawed all discrimination against gays (you wouldn't be able to say there all the nasty things you like saying about gays, Frankie. Come to think of it, it appears you would be more Jewish if you dropped the homophobia, Frankie), to include spousal rights, pensions and adoption. And abortion is an absolute (wikipedia says about 20,000 little Frankies a year).

[Frank Drackman]

Who's against Gays? I was a big fan of "The L Word", and love Women's Softball, tried to get my own Daughters to eat at the "Y" but I guess they were born with a taste for the Salami. I don't even mind the Homo's as long as they're not trying to play hide the Salami with me or contaminating the blood supply. But even then I don't want to throw them off buildings like they do in Gaza.

Frank

[hobie]

I don't know why you fault Biden for being 'creepy', Frankie.

[DDHarriman]

>Who's against Gays?

Little kids and parents mostly. Rightly so given the data.

[hobie]

Well, Jews ain't as dumb as Christians. Like all sane people, they support themselves and leave it at that. What possible benefit would it be for them to support some doomsday cult?

[hobie]

"...defend Christians instead of spit on them"

I take it you are referring to the videos of groups of Hasidic teenager thugs marauding Jerusalem spitting on and shoving Christian women. I've seen them too. But that (and our Frankie here) are in no way indicative of Jewish people as a whole.

[Frank Drackman]

Of course they're harassing Christian women. The Jewish ones are all armed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What's so bad about left-wing anti-Zionism? Jews, as such, have nothing to fear, unless they're Israeli, support Israel, or refuse to disavow Israel. And so long as they don't raise inconvenient issues about human-rights violations by international actors who *aren't* Israel, and who seem to get the approval of indifference of these "anti-Zionists."

There's nothing at all anti-Jewish about that.

/sarc

[hobie]

As usual, you're incorrectly conflating abhorrence of Israeli politics and violence with an abhorrence of Judaism. You got anything else to offer?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And you're conflating one-sided, double-standard-laden attacks on Israel and "Zionists" with legitimate, good-faith criticism.

Let me know when demonstrators single out Muslims for harassment and demand that they disavow Islamic extremism as a condition for (say) walking freely on campus.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm going to say this: stop attacking Christians if you ant any credibility on antisemitism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So why would the Comey indictment be invalid but not the Biden pardons?

[Zarniwoop]

Halligan and her team stood up in court before a Federal judge and admitted facts showing non-compliance with fundamental procedural requirements.

Thinking that “buh-buh-but Biden” is somehow even remotely relevant to that is a truly amazing apples-to-sealion comparison.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What facts?

[Zarniwoop]

a truly amazing apples-to-sealion comparison

What facts?

I rest my case.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You rest your case without presenting any facts?

As I said above, I love how the left thinks they've discovered a new word that means that they don't have to defend their position.

[Life of Brian]

admitted facts showing non-compliance with fundamental procedural requirements

I'm genuinely confused here. About 16 hours ago you said the government's latest briefing on the issue seemed reasonable and it would be interesting to see how Comey would respond. What so fundamentally shifted since then?

[Zarniwoop]

The argument (paraphrased) that non-substantive error correction is distinguishable and does not require dismissal with prejudice is reasonable. Whether Halligan’s admitted failures of presention can actually be crammed into that bucket, and how Comey will respond, will be interesting.

[Life of Brian]

Got it, thanks. Still not quite tracking what "fundamental procedural requirements" this sort of housekeeping measure would violate since apparently the actual text of the two charges in the operative indictment are identical to the text of the two charges the GJ voted to indict on in the original three-count document, but that seems like precisely the issue Comey is going to have to lean into in his response so we'll see soon enough.

[ducksalad]

Question (I really don't know): Is there something in writing that says they formally voted on each of the three charges, and had a majority for two of them?

Or did they vote on the whole thing, with a majority against, with some of them giving the reason that they objected to Charge #1, and the foreman did math and figured that if you changed those votes there would have been a majority for the other two?

To me those aren't at all the same thing.

[Kenneth Almquist]

My understanding, while a grand jury is free to hold votes on the individual counts, what actually matters is whether the grand jury agrees to the indictment as a whole. Imagine an indictment where a group of 12 jurors agree that there is probably cause to support the first count of the indictment, and a different group of 12 grand jurors think there is probable cause to support the second count. The grand jury should no bill the indictment because there aren’t 12 jurors who support both counts.

Docket entry 3 is a form reporting that “12 or more grand jurors did not concur in finding an indictment this case,” but the words “Count 1 only,” with the “1” underlined, are handwritten above the words “in this case.” That suggests that the jurors voted on each of the counts separately, and that counts 2 and 3 each got 12 votes.

Docket entry 1 is an indictment, signed by the grand jury foreman. That should mean that the signed indictment was presented to the grand jury and the grand jury approved it. Halligan has now conceded that that did not happen.

I would guess that the grand jury deliberations established, to the satisfaction of the grand jury foreman, that the grand jury would vote for an indictment containing just counts 2 and 3 of the original indictment. I would also guess that Lindsay Halligan mislead the grand jury foreman about the meaning of his signature on the document, making him think that he was indicating the grand jury was willing to approve the indictment, not certifying that it had actually done so. The grand jury foreman was presumably not a lawyer and would have no reason to doubt Halligan on this point.

[Estragon]

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/413/1061/36450/

[ducksalad]

I suppose if got into a federal court, and the person claiming immunity from prosecution based on the pardon admitted to the judge that Biden had never seen it, then maybe you'd sort of have the start of a point.

Enough to start a discussion on whether two totally different things - indictments and pardons - need to have identical rules. Not enough to win the discussion, but you'd have something.

But since there hasn't been such a case, you don't have anything except the lowest grade of whataboutism - the kind where the whatabout is not remotely similar.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hasn't it been established that Biden hasn't seen many of the pardons?

[Zarniwoop]

TwelveInchSealion is “just asking questions”!

[hobie]

Leave him be...it's all he has. Aw hell...I'll join in the fun. TwelveInch...is it true that you are able to balance a ball on your nose?

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, but I'm able to balance your mom on my dick.

[hobie]

HaHa! Classy. So necrophilia's your thing, eh?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not that tired old retort.

[John 4]

*makes a yo mama joke*

*complains about tired jokes*

Astounding levels of self-awareness among the cultists.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's right, you guys think asking question is bad too now!

[Sarcastr0]

Don't pretend you were asking in good faith.

This was a particularly lazy or desperate attempt. Everyone clocked this for a sealioning off the break.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Everyone clocked this for a sealioning..."

Great argument!

[ducksalad]

Depends what you mean by "established".

If by "established" you mean a court has found it to be a fact based either on someone's admission or a contested hearing where evidence was presented, then AFAIK it has not been established. On the other hand, it IS established that the indictment wasn't shown to the whole grand jury, or even 12 of them. So the situations are not the same.

Now maybe by "established" you mean an intelligent person, looking at competing media narratives and making a fair-minded judgment as to who is probably telling truth, would think it more likely than not that Biden never saw some of those pardons. In that case, I actually agree it's "established".

The problem is that by that same definition, it's way more "established" that the whole Comey prosecution is based on a tendentious interpretation of what he said, would not be pursued except as retaliation for legal things he did, and therefore meets the standard for vindictive prosecution. So you still lose either way.

And we still haven't gotten to whether indictments and pardons should be required to meet the same standards. One is a judicial proceeding that is reviewable, the other is a matter of executive discretion. Also, our legal system is intentionally and rightly biased toward defendants. The government needs to have all its boxes checked and by default people don't get prosecuted.

[David Nieporent]

Note that the (bad faith) question (like the entire fake "autopen" scandal) mistakenly implies that a pardon is a document. But the document is evidence of a pardon; it isn't the pardon itself. There are very practical reasons to have pardons be in writing, to be sure, but that's not required. (No, I'm not arguing the "can declassify/pardon in my head" position; if it wasn’t communicated, then it didn't happen.) As long as Biden was aware of and approved the pardon of a particular person or set of people, it's valid whether he "saw" the document or not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But the document is evidence of a pardon;"

Not in these cases, that's the whole point.

[David Nieporent]

You don't know what evidence means, is the whole point.

[hobie]

Because one is a criminal indictment and the other a pardon. Duh!

[David Nieporent]

So why would the Comey indictment be invalid but not the Biden pardons?

I don't even understand the question. It's like saying, "Why would it be illegal to drive 70 in a 65 but not to walk your dog around the block?" They're two unrelated things.

[Mr. Bumble]

Le Monde has a long article (https://lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/11/19/nicolas-guillou-juge-francais-de-la-cpi-sanctionne-par-les-etats-unis-face-aux-attaques-les-magistrats-de-la-cour-tiendront_6654016_3210.html) describing the hellish life of Nicolas Guillou, a French judge at the ICC in The Hague, due to U.S. sanctions punishing him for authorizing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes in Gaza.
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1991352574390227129?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1991352574390227129%7Ctwgr%5E2f057c7b324b9f1ba699092be81b7b4209a7771b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F757545%2F

Guillou's daily existence has been transformed into a Kafkaesque nightmare. He cannot: open or maintain accounts with Google, Amazon, Apple, or any US company; make hotel reservations (Expedia canceled his booking in France hours after he made it); conduct online commerce, since he can't know if the packaging is American; use any major credit card (Visa, Mastercard, Amex are all American); access normal banking services, even with non-American banks, as banks worldwide close sanctioned accounts; conduct virtually any financial transaction.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You mean attempting to imprison a foreign head of state complicates your life? Color me shocked.

[Frank Drackman]

He still has a pager, you can do a lot with them.

[ThePublius]

Paywalled.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Guillou's daily existence has been transformed into a Kafkaesque nightmare. "

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA etc.

[Martinned]

If you're happy to have voted for a government that undermines the rule of law at home and abroad, then I'm happy for you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Applying the law to some French dude undermines it?

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump is using his authority under 22 U.S. Code Chapter 81 Subchapter II - AMERICAN SERVICEMEMBERS’ PROTECTION which also protects allied officials.

So he is upholding the rule of law, US law, not whatever "law" you like.

[apedad]

But that law prevents the US from cooperating with ICC.

" . . . no United States Court, and no agency or entity of any State or local government, including any court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court in response to a request for cooperation . . . . "

The US created the sanctions against him - which has nothing to do with the ICC.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7423

[Bob from Ohio]

"which has nothing to do with the ICC"

What? He is sanctioned because he is on the ICC and approved the arrest warrants.

[apedad]

I'VE GOT IT!!!

Trump is actually (still) a Democrat/Progressive and conned the Republicans into voting for him.

Now he's using his powers to destroy Republicans and get people to vote for Dems.

This would also explain his disregard for operational details and specificity.

Move over Sun Tzu; we have a new stragetic mastermind!

[DDHarriman]

lmao whose voting for Dems other than other Marxists and Commies and illegals?

[Frank Drackman]

You've got it alright,
Tertiary Syphilis, but there's a cure for it, seems the Spirochetes haven't figured out a way around good old Penicillin G, and if you're one of those Penicillin-Allergic Sissies, there's Ceftriaxone (same Beta-Lactam ring as Penicillin). Early treatment's the key, otherwise you get like Sleepy Joe where the Treponemes are the only thing keeping the remaining Neurons from falling apart.

Frank

[Zarniwoop]

That would also explain nominating Matt “Temu Epstein” Gaetz to be AG!

[Estragon]

You kid, but I think we are very likely to see— after Don is gone— something along those lines from whatever emerges in the aftermath from these people.

[Sarcastr0]

I was there when GWB became a immigrant-loving, Muslim-coddling globalist.

One shudders to think what kind of compromising squish Trump will become.

Or maybe they'll go into the wilderness for 12 years and come back with a rejuvenated hopeful message and a triangulating blue state Republican. A Bill Clinton-but-for-GOP.

Lewinsky jokes are left as an exercise for the reader.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I was there when GWB became a immigrant-loving, Muslim-coddling globalist."

I am here when liberals celebrated Dick Cheney. Maddow was an invited guest at his funeral!

Shotgun jokes are left as an exercise for the reader.

[Sarcastr0]

Attending someone’s funeral could go a couple of ways.

I’ll wait to see if they say something.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh man Estragon, you called it!
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/11/20/open-thread-16/?comments=true#comment-11288443

Trump admin is going off the rails, abandoning what he campaigned on and embracing neocons, unfortunately. They are losing support. Looks like a blue wave forming

MAGA cannot fail, only be failed! Coming from the Lost Causer that wants a national divorce, hard to figure what the hope was.

[DDHarriman]

In Epstein news, Democrats rally around Democrats exposed by the Epstein release and ginning up conspiracy theories to explain why Trump wasn't implicated.

----

Of course. Of course this was the outcome. The harder the Democrat Narrative Hype Train, the louder the crash. IT'S MEULLER TIME! lmao

[hobie]

Us libs have the popcorn out. Any Dem that palled around with Epstein is going right under the bus. No question about it. Sad thing is, some very important MAGA are going there too.

[Sarcastr0]

I've heard tell the nonvoting representative from the Virgin Islands may be implicated. That's load-bearing for the left, so I guess we gotta shut the whole thing down.

I'll call SOROS.

[hobie]

Bro, Soros messaged me, like, 15 times last week. I told him he needs to chill the fuck out, but to keep the checks coming.

[Glaucomatose]

He sends you checks? Am I the only one still taking my Jew Gold in the form of gold?

[Zarniwoop]

I got five tons of flax.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I've heard tell the nonvoting representative from the Virgin Islands may be implicated."

Lack of censure of her shows [as if we didn't already know] your concern is phony.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the lack of a rush to judgement shows that SOROS works fast.

[Bob from Ohio]

"rush to judgement"

She gave Epstein her personal cell phone #, took campaign money from him and used his texts in real time in a hearing. Then Dems just dismissed as dealing with a "constituent" who just happened to be a convicted sex offender.

You can't even repudiate a minor figure. Because you don't care about anything but hurting Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Why haven't the Republicans moved to censure her? Jeez, I guess SOROS's reach extends that far.

No idea how this shakes out in the end, but for right now you're not going to succeed in jumping this up into anything sufficient to deflect from the current Trump/Epstein 'he knew about the girls' imbroglio.

[Bob from Ohio]

She's yours. Dems can introduce a censure motion too.

Why do you keep bringing up Soros to me?

[Sarcastr0]

If she's so bad, the GOP should get off their asses!

Or, maybe, quick-turns is not how Congress, censure motions included, tends to work and you're making up bullshit standards to attack Dems with.

Standards you cannot apply to Republicans for...reasons.

[Bob from Ohio]

Raskin and others are defending her.

How long does a censure motion take to draft and introduce? I guess they have to kill a goose and pluck feathers for a pen.

Such motions are privileged, they require a vote.

[hobie]

I'm all for anyone - Dem or Rep - to try to censure this former Republican delegate. It will at least create a baseline of Epstein-association by which we measure others and enforce further sanctions on others. Wouldn't you agree, Bob?

[David Nieporent]

She gave Epstein her personal cell phone #, took campaign money from him and used his texts in real time in a hearing.

Which of those identified acts justifies censure?

[Mr. Bumble]

Didn't the censure motion fail?

[David Nieporent]

It did indeed. But I wanted an explanation from someone (Bob) who was seemingly arguing that censure was appropriate as to why.

[Bob from Ohio]

Taking directions from Epstein post-conviction is deserving of censure.

Missed the vote i guess.

Shame on the following:

"Three House Republicans — Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska, Lance Gooden of Texas and Dave Joyce of Ohio — voted with all Democrats against the measure. Three Republicans voted present: Reps. Andrew Garbarino of New York, Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania and Jay Obernolte of California."

[DDHarriman]

They have actual texts of the collusion. Are you waiting for someone else to judge them for you?

[David Nieporent]

Oh, she's totally implicated. In receiving text messages from — and maybe even sending text messages to — Epstein. As we know, the reason Epstein is of interest to the public is his SMS habit.

[Bob from Ohio]

It was after his conviction. He was a registered sex offender,

[David Nieporent]

And? That's probably a good reason not to go to parties with him, but why is it censureworthy to talk to a registered sex offender?

[DDHarriman]

... during a Congressional hearing which she was on for an Epstein related affair and being fed questions and statements during it

Weird how you left out that very important context.

Well not weird. It's David. It's you. That's what you do.

[Bob from Ohio]

Is there no Democrat you won't defend here?

[Sarcastr0]

You were here during Biden.

Is your memory so partisan?

[Zarniwoop]

Larry Summers: underbussed.
Matt Gaetz (aka “Temu Epstein”): nominated to be Attorney General (later withdrawn, because duh).

Come to think of it, Trump should thank his lucky stars that it’s not AG Gaetz who has control of the Epstein files. Because that would be one helluva look for the GOP.

[Martinned]

Yes, Democrats are really rallying around Lawrence Summers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wasn't Epstein Jewish?

[DDHarriman]

Well he was an agent for MOSSAD.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A Miami federal grand jury indicted South Florida Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick Wednesday, accusing her of funneling federal pandemic relief funds back to her own 2021 congressional campaign."

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article312986064.html#storylink=cpy

Nice nugget.

"There are currently two other congressional Democrats under federal indictment in the House.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Who’s the other besides McIver (which will probably end with an NG)?

Abugazeleh isn’t in the House yet.

[Sarcastr0]

Given recent events, I don't think a federal indictment is to be trusted as the strong sign of criminality it once was.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This one is probably more legit since I believe the House Ethics Committee was investigating this issue previously. And surprisingly, the House Ethics Committee is still pretty even-handed all things considered.

And someone has clearly kept the biggest morons, like Eagle Ed Martin, away from this one. Which is what you would do if the case was legit.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair prediction. And the charges have a specificity that makes this seem more like the outcome of an actual investigation, versus manufactured by someone abusing their access to private info.

The other 2 indictments, especially the ICE interference one...I'm skeptical. But I'll backpeddal some and allow that smart money is this Miami Rep in trouble.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The fascism thesis is helpful here because you can analyze the legal legitimacy of prosecutions by using the normative/prerogative state framework to identify the motivating force behind them.

[DDHarriman]

Or, get closer to reality with how you people actually reason, use the Gold Heart/Black Heart framework. Democrats have golden hearts, so their acts are lawful, moral, just, and always good. Not-a-Democrats have evil vile black hearts, so their acts are unlawful, with improper animus, unjust, and never ever ever good.

[jb]

That's a pretty dumb comment in the context of a set of comments that flatly contradicts it.

[Kazinski]

"U.S. Congressman Henry Cuellar Charged with Bribery and Acting as a Foreign Agent
May 3, 2024 — An indictment was unsealed today in the Southern District of Texas charging U.S. Congressman Enrique Roberto “Henry” Cuellar, 68"

Notice he was indicted by the Biden DOJ before the election, and his democratic constituents still re-elected him.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh. Yeah. Forgot about that guy.

[Poxigah146]

Every black Democrat is either stupid, incompetent, corrupt, or all three.

[Frank Drackman]

(The) Zoran Man-damn-he is meeting "45/47/48?" in the Oval Orifice tomorrow.
Any chance the "Top Cop" slaps the cuffs on him and turns him over to ICE for immediate Re-Patriation to his native Uganda??? You know, that whole "Immigration Fraud" thing.
Or maybe be really mean and just send him to one of those camps in Louisiana.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is going to say four words to neuter the Marxist:

"New York Train Tunnels."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. According to Jasmine Crockett, a whole lot of Republicans took money from Jeffrey Epstein!

Wait, she didn't mean that Jeffrey Epstein.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd say she was an Idiot but that wouldn't be fair to the Idiots.

[wvattorney13]

This is all done with a purpose. How many voters will spread the idea that Republicans took money from Jeffrey Epstein? That is the point.

And the so-called "responsible" Dems can disavow it. They never said it. That was Crockett.

[Mr. Bumble]

...because we all know Jasmin Crockett is a thespian.

[Frank Drackman]

and an admitted Homo Sapiens!

[Sarcastr0]

A Bellmorian level of speculative sekret Democratic coordination.

[apedad]

Israel begins expropriating 1,800 dunams of West Bank land to develop archaeological site

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-begins-seizing-1800-dunams-of-west-bank-land-to-develop-archaeological-site/

To paraphrase Bill Cosby, "What's a dunam?"

[Frank Drackman]

Get some wood and build it 300 Dunamis by 80 Dunamis by 40 Dunamis.....

[apedad]

God: I'm going to destroy the world.
Noah: Right ... Am I on Candid Camera? How are you gonna do it?
God: I'm going to make it rain for a thousand days and drown them right out.
Noah: Right ... Listen, do this and you'll save water. Let it rain for forty days and forty nights and wait for the sewers to back up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There actually is evidence that the great flood was real.

[David Nieporent]

Obviously, there isn't. If one tries to sanewash this: there are of course many instances of historical localized floods over the millennia, and some people have argued that this particular flood or that one might have been the inspiration for one or another particular flood myth (many cultures have such a story).

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Of course the great flood was real. Where do you think the Grand Canyon came from? And, they found the actual ark on the top of Mt Ararat and moved it to northern Kentucky. You can go and see it there today.

Here's a documentary about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6omFJhKr6o

[Zarniwoop]

Way back when I was an undergrad, I had a student librarian job in the MIT course 12 library in the Green Building. While shelving stuff, I spotted a book about the geology of the biblical flood. It was there! Real! I brought it to the head librarian and asked why this ridonkulous BS was on the shelves. She told me to put in back; it’s important to have all views represented, for perspective.

But damn, even the best “evidence of the great flood” that was worth shelving at MIT was unmitigated bool and sheet.

Not surprised that Grampa Ed slurps it right up.

[grb]

apedad : "God: I'm going to destroy the world."

Which brings to mind this exchange in Martin Cruz Smith's mystery, "Wolves Eat Dogs":

"Noah was an asshole."
"Why Noah?" Arkady asked. This was a new indictment.
"He didn't argue."
"Noah should have argued?"

Yakov explained, "Abraham argues with God not to kill everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses pleads with God not to kill worshippers of the golden calf. But God tells Noah to build a boat because He's going to flood the entire world, and what does Noah say? Not a word."

"Not a word," said Bobby, "and saves the minimum. What a asshole”

Perhaps it's because I'm not a religious person, but my favorite parts of the Old Testament are where people confront God - such as Job or some Psalms. As long as it doesn't get out of hand, the Big Guy seems to actually respect a little in-Your-face assertiveness.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Oh, God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No" Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want, Abe, but the next time you see me comin', you better run ...

[grb]

You can't go wrong with Mr. Dylan.

[bernard11]

As I understand it, arguing with God is considered not only acceptable, but actually virtuous.

Don't forget Lot's bargaining.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So I assume the people who were very upset about Jay Jones are going to have serious criticism for the President calling for some congressmen to be killed.

And keep in mind, unlike Jay Jones, the President is legally allowed to kill them and get away with it!

[Bob from Ohio]

Note no quote

Trump is saying execution after arrest and trial, which is a traditional treason penalty. Jones wanted to kill children.

"some congressmen"

"Senator Elissa Slotkin ...Maggie Goodlander... and Chrissy Houlahan"

Can't even get facts rights.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Note no quote."

"SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"

Happy?

"Trump is saying execution after arrest and trial, which is a traditional treason penalty."

Where in that quote does he say: arrest, trial, or treason? Also in what way did any of the the congressmembers conduct amount to wither sedition or treason. Also, under current death penalty jurisprudence, how would the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances? You're a "lawyer": lay out the elements, Bob. If you can't: why do you think i's appropriate for the executive to announce such a legally unsupportable thing.

"Jones wanted to kill children."

And Trump put these people's family members in danger by publicly calling for their death. We already have examples of right-wingers successfully attacking the homes of Democratic lawmakers and judges. If something bad happens to any of these people or their families, will you be prepared to condemn Trump? Or will you find a way to justify it like you do every other act of violence you approve of?

[Sarcastr0]

This lazy 'I'm not going to lift a finger to Google, I'm just going to call you a liar' is becoming a commonality among the more shitheely commenters here.

It's just another style of sealioning.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country," Trump wrote in an earlier post. "Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???"

LOCK THEM UP

"earlier post" which you left out

"legally unsupportable thing"

Oh noes. Donald Trump made an error of law in a social media post. Shocking, never happened before.

Can you point me to your condemnation of Jones?

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Oh noes. Donald Trump made an error of law in a social media post. Shocking, never happened before."

An "error of law" he wants his enemies DEAD. And he has the power and legal immunity to make that happen. Do you seriously not understand the problem here?

[Sarcastr0]

It's been observed how MAGA has taken to describing things with maximum generality to pretend they're not obviously terrible.

"Oh so it's illegal to make plans with friends now?"
"Oh so it's illegal to stand on 5th Avenue and move your index finger now?"
"Oh so it's a big deal to make a mistake on social media now?"

Yes, I can point to my condemnation of Jones.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/05/sunday-open-thread-7/?comments=true#comment-11233202

That guys sucks and I hope he loses.

He might still win! That's a pretty dark sign about how pissed off Dems are.
You'd think Dems would have recently learned that ignoring the character of your guy because the other side is 'just that bad' does not end well for civic society.

[Bob from Ohio]

Threading error, I was responding to ltg

[David Nieporent]

Jones wanted to kill children

He did not. You still can't keep from lying. The thing is, what Jones said was gross enough. But you feel the need to fabricate.

[Bob from Ohio]

Is there any Democrat you won't defend here?

[David Nieporent]

At long last do you have no sense of decency?

[JohnSmith97]

"You were talking about hoping Jennifer Gilbert's children would die"
JJ: "Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy"

JJ: "I mean do I think Todd and Jennifer are evil? And that they are breeding little fascists? Yes"

What a nice guy. And your typical (D) voter simply doesn't care - or just agrees with him.

[jb]

When there's political violence against the right, the MAGA folks will draw these tenuous lines like "you said Trump was a fascist or a threat to the county and we all know that if those things were really true then of course people would want to kill him" whereas here Trump is calling for the actual death of his political opponents and... apparently it's just fine?

At least with Jay Jones you saw a lot of Dems (including here) denouncing it. I haven't seen any pushback against Trump by folks here or Republicans generally.

[Brett Bellmore]

How and Why do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student Achievement?

Shocker: Experienced teachers have better student outcomes.

Teachers who themselves test highly in their subject have better student outcomes, also a shocker. [/sarc]

National Board certification identifies better teachers, but if you look at their performance prior to the certification, doesn't MAKE them better teachers.

And, finally, graduate and advanced degrees were positively associated with student performance if the teacher got them before starting teaching, and negatively associated with student performance if obtained after starting teaching. That was kind of interesting. Maybe bad teachers pursue degrees after starting their careers, in an (ineffective?) effort to improve themselves?

[hobie]

You make a damning case against homeschooling. Could also be a reason hillbillies are soft in the head.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, not really. They weren't looking at class size, after all. Though it certainly suggests that home schooling would be particularly effective if done by the right sort of teacher.

Home schooling actually stacks up pretty well compared to conventional schooling. Which is not shocking when you consider the student teacher ratio is typically much lower.

A Review of research on Homeschooling and what might educators learn?

Basically every study confirms that, on average, homeschooled children do better than the public schools.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- teachers who get their degrees before teaching have to earn them. Those who get them while teaching largely rest on the gravitas they have as teachers. Same thing with management degrees -- the successful businessman can rest on his laurels and have his secretary type is papers.

[David Nieporent]

the successful businessman can rest on his laurels and have his secretary type is papers.

I mean, if this were 1950, sure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- teachers who get their degrees before teaching have to earn them. Those who get them while teaching largely rest on the gravitas they have as teachers. Same thing with management degrees -- the successful businessman can rest on his laurels and have his secretary type is papers.

Also what are the grad degrees IN?

[ducksalad]

It doesn't affect the main result (which as you say seems fairly obvious), but there's an interesting little detail in their methodology.

They attempt to rate the quality of the teacher's undergraduate education. How? Their sole measure is how selective the school's admissions were.

I can see how a "it's nature, not nurture" genetic reductionist might think that's the right measure. But it's a super odd thing for a bunch of educators to say it doesn't matter what the school does for four years, all you need to do is look at the input. And it's not consistent with their own conclusions.

[David Nieporent]

So as part of Loki's they lie they lie they lie series, he and I have been discussing off-and-on the case of Marimar Martinez, the Chicago woman who ICE/CBP shot five times, claiming she had rammed them with her car even though the video clearly showed them cutting her off and causing the accident. And then they destroyed evidence of the crash and told like six different stories to the court about how that happened.

So… all charges against her have now been dropped by prosecutors; I guess they finally looked at the evidence, and didn't want to be humiliated by an acquittal as Jeanine Pirro has repeatedly been.

[M L]

Trump admin is going off the rails, abandoning what he campaigned on and embracing neocons, unfortunately. They are losing support like never before. Looks like a blue wave forming.

[ducksalad]

General observation, or something specific that you disagree with?

[M L]

General observation. A lot of it is represented in Trump's attacks on Massie, Paul, and Greene.

[Sarcastr0]

'cause he's attacking Congressional Republicans that don't lockstep with him?

That behavior was baked in since 2016.

[M L]

It's not the behavior of attacking congressional Rs. It's the substantive issues they are clashing over and the positions he is taking. When Trump attacked McCain everyone cheered. Why is it always difficult or impossible for you to follow very simple things?

[Sarcastr0]

You claimed there were no specific issues, it was a general observation.

Pick a lane.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Pick Elaine?

[Voize of Reazon]

Just don't pick Kramer.

[John F. Carr]

AP reports that Border Patrol is using a nationwide network of license plate readers to identify suspicious cars. Those cars are then pulled over on a pretext by local police for questioning. In red states only, I imagine. Texas is mentioned.

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-patrol-surveillance-drivers-ice-trump-9f5d05469ce8c629d6fecf32d32098cd

When I am on the Supreme Court I will vote to overrule Whren and say there is a presumption of unconstitutional action when police enforce a law that everybody breaks.

[hobie]

Body cams have transformed law enforcement for the better. A game changer. But dragnets like this...and Palantir...(remember Carnivore) are a scourge. I think this is where libs and anti-gubmint MAGA should agree.

[ducksalad]

All in the last 3h or so:

It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand - We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET. President DJT
---
This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT
---
SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!

Apparently he's angry at congressmen who made some commonplace high-school civics level observations about illegal orders.

[Sarcastr0]

What a normal President we have.

Not extraordinarily terrible at all.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I wonder if SCOTUS (well Roberts and Barrett anyway) see this stuff and regret the immunity decision. Or at least regret not just making up a rule (since they were making stuff up anyway) that the President isn't immune to murder charges.

[hobie]

Cop: We caught you finger raping more women.
Trump: Part of my official duties. But why rape when I can just murder them.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The decision was about the prerogatives of the presidency, rather than an absolution of Trump’s conduct during his first term as president or an endorsement of his cause. But it was the fullest expression the Court has ever made of a maximalist view of that power, narrowly checked by the Court and Congress.

Hey. "Trump" v. U.S. was about the presidency. It wasn't about Trump himself. We have to think long term here.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/legal/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-trump-united-states

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They rested on their background:

“We are veterans and national security professionals who love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation.

https://www.slotkin.senate.gov/2025/11/20/joint-statement-from-lawmakers-slotkin-kelly-crow-deluzio-goodlander-and-houlahan/

A little bit of Republican pushback:

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump ally who served as a lawyer for the military reserves, said the president’s remarks were “over the top,” though he also said he considered the Democrats’ video “despicable.” And GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he didn’t think it was “really a good idea to talk about jailing your political opponents, or hanging them, or whatever else.”

A "both sides" from the military guy and a Rand Paul "I'm concerned" statement is of limited value, but it's something, I guess. I'd be interested in a poll of the Republican military vets.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/20/politics/trump-democrats-seditious-behavior

Mike Johnson went the usual way.

But House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, defended Trump, calling the video that sparked his reaction “wildly inappropriate.”

“It is very dangerous. You have leading members of Congress telling troops to disobey orders. I think that’s unprecedented in American history,” he said.

[JohnSmith97]

Yes, you might want to look into following orders.

Tip: They are not unlawful just because you don't like them.

[loki13]

Further update to the "they lie they lie they lie" series (and appreciate DMN updating us on the clusterff that was their lies in the Miramar Martinez case) ...

Remember how I mentioned yesterday that the Judge in the Abrego proceeding wouldn't accept a declaration from the DOJ, and demanded that the declarant testify today?

Welp, it's going exactly like you would expect. In fairness, the guy is being honest. He stated that he has no personal knowledge of the things that are in the declaration. That he hasn't talked to or met anyone other than a lawyer who told him what would be in the declaration and had him sign it. The first time he heard of the declaration was the day it was filed, when he was told that he would be signing it. He doesn't even know if anyone in the government has contacted Costa Rica since August, which .. the entire point of the declaration was the change regarding Costa Rica since August.

As the Judge remarked, he has no personal knowledge ... but at least he's being candid with the court. And this is after the judge specifically ordered the DOJ to produce someone with actual knowledge that would bind the government.

Again- this needs to be a flashing neon sign. The DOJ will produce false declarations in the hope that they can avoid hearings and testimony, and judges are realizing that they can't believe them.

They lie. They lie. They lie.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure if his affidavit is public (I believe it was filed under seal, right?) But every single affidavit I have drafted in the last few decades includes as boilerplate that the statements in the affidavit are made based on personal knowledge except where specifically indicated otherwise, and that the affiant is competent to testify to the facts in the affidavit if necessary. Otherwise, it's worthless hearsay. (To be sure, the rules of evidence do not always apply in some types of hearings, so it might be admissible — but it's still worthless.) Was that in this affidavit, or did they just hope nobody would notice?

[David Nieporent]

Follow up: based on some live tweeting of the hearing, the affidavit is going to be unsealed.

[hobie]

"The DOJ will produce false declarations in the hope that they can avoid hearings and testimony"

That's fucking scary stuff

[not guilty]

Politico reports:

President Donald Trump on Thursday called for six Democratic lawmakers to face arrest and trial after they made a video encouraging U.S. service members and members of the intelligence community to refrain from following orders if they broke the law.

“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” Trump charged in a post on Truth Social. “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand - We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.”

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/11/20/congress/trump-democratic-lawmakers-sedition-00661504

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582417825161974

The targets of Trump's ire reportedly are Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), as well as Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Penn.), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.) and Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.) were featured in the Tuesday video. They are all either military veterans or worked in national security-focused roles before taking office.

The duty of military personnel to disobey unlawful orders is well established. U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section892&num=0&edition=prelim

Reminding military personnel of their duty in that regard is advocacy at the heart of First Amendment protection. Contrary to what Trump may believe, refusing to kiss the President's ass is not a criminal offense.

[John 4]

You’re way late to the party. The cult already determined that Trump simply meant a normal conviction and execution via totally legal means and of course with respect to due process. You just have to squint enough that your eyes are fully closed, and it’s all right there in the tweets!

[apedad]

Point of order . . . .

Article 92 doesn't address unlawful orders.

[not guilty]

"Article 92 doesn't address unlawful orders."

Yes it does, by specifying "any lawful general order or regulation" as its subject matter. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius is a legal maxim meaning “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.”

[TwelveInchPianist]

Right. So it addresses lawful orders, and doesn't address unlawful orders, as apedad said, and contrary to your claim above, it doesn't require service members to disobey unlawful orders.

[David Nieporent]

The law requires service members to disobey unlawful orders. It's illegal to do unlawful things.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. As I said elsewhere, an unlawful order isn't necessarily an order to do something unlawful.

[John 4]

...and?

[TwelveInchPianist]

And what?

[M L]

There's a fine line between treason and patriotism. Perhaps the line is drawn by the victors while they are writing history.

What are the potential unconstitutional orders that Democrats are concerned about? As we all know, Dems are real big on following the constitution!

[Sarcastr0]

The right doesn't have a monopoly on following the Constitution.

And you, who do not want our union to endure, shouldn't faff about with treason accusations.

[M L]

Of course. Like I said, Dems are real big on following the constitution. Just depends what you mean by constitution. And if there is a disagreement about what it means, well then one side or the other just might have oopsie done a treason.

I like the union for some things, common defense and free interstate trade for example. We can do without some other things. Which do you mean by "our union," my fellow patriotic constitution-loving American?

[Sarcastr0]

You want a 'national divorce.'

That's just speech, but a while ago the action of trying to effectuate that was pretty strongly defined as treason.

[M L]

Whatever you say, my fellow patriotic constitution-loving American. Just keep Dunning Krugering your way through life.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I think you're a countryman of mine.

I hope you think the same of me.

Given your...outlier positions, I do think it's a bit rich for you to be throwing around that treason is super close to patriotism. And same dinging those you disagree with on their Constitutional fidelity.

[grb]

M L : "We can do without some other things. Which do you mean by "our union," my fellow patriotic constitution-loving American?"

Three years ago, I did a long backpacking hike with an old friend who is far, far Left. It really gave me an appreciation for the Horseshoe Theory, because long stretches of his political harangues were mostly indistinguishable from far, far Right.

In both cases there's general scorn & contempt for our country's government, governmental structure, leaders, and overall culture. In both cases, there's an eagerness to see everybody, everything, and every decision in the most jaded manner possible, often leading into a dense conspiratorial fog. Of course he would also call himself a "fellow patriotic constitution-loving American" - even though he seems to hate pretty much everything constitutional or American.

However he's an exceptionally tall guy, so I'm betting there's that difference with you, ML.

[bernard11]

Don't forget, M.L. is a big fan of the Confederacy. Of course he doesn't give a shit about the Union.

[grb]

not guilty : "Reminding military personnel of their duty...."

To be fair, I think this is sensitive ground despite everything on the video having solid ethical, legal, and 1A standing. But even given that, any message on military disobedience that has the slightest hint of a partisan slant makes me nervous.

That said, let's look at a similar phenomena from the other side : Trump regularly giving speeches to military groups that are crudely and viciously partisan.

In both cases, there are clear First Amendment grounds. In both cases, I doubt there's any real impact or damage. But as typical with Trump, he's bulldozing long-accepted rules of presidential and political behavior. The question is whether the video is open to the same charge. We have erected a massive wall between our professional military and party politics. But like many of the guardrails that protect our democracy, much of that is by accepted norms and conventions.

And those norms and conventions are precisely what Trump has repeatedly ignored or destroyed. This, as his supporters hoot & cackle at the damage to our constitutional order. We have three more years until an adult with a fully-functioning brain is in the White House. That Democrat will have a lot of damage to undo. Whenever possible, we must try not to make his (or her) job worse.

[ducksalad]

"We have three more years until an adult with a fully-functioning brain is in the White House."

Maybe, maybe not. "Time and chance happen to them all" and a lot more time and chance happen to people in their late 70s. And on the other side, if it doesn't happen, there is no guarantee that we'll vote in an adult with a fully-functioning brain in 2028. We failed to do that the last three elections. Some would say longer than that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The duty of military personnel to disobey unlawful orders is well established."

This is wrong. An order to commit a crime would be unlawful, and it would be a crime for the servicemember to obey it (duh). But just because an order is unlawful doesn't mean that you can't obey it.

If a superior officer orders you to have sex with her, it's an unlawful order, but you can still obey it if you want.

An order to convert to a different religion would be unlawful, but it doesn't prevent you from changing religions. Etc.

[grb]

TwelveInchPianist : "If a superior officer orders you to have sex with her, it's an unlawful order, but you can still obey it if you want."

Three Points :

1. That's a very unique exception. I'm not sure how much it proves.

2. Both it and the following religious one are both non-military unlawful orders. They lay wholly outside of any military mission or action. It would be useful to see examples that don't.

3. I expect someone who has a sexual relationship within the chain of command would still face possible military justice. Without evidence of fear or coercion, charges are definitely possible, maybe even probable. The order being unlawful, it would not be a shield.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That's a very unique exception. I'm not sure how much it proves."

It's an example. The point is, there's no requirement per se to disobey an unlawful order, it's only required if the order is unlawful because the conduct itself is unlawful.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" I expect someone who has a sexual relationship within the chain of command would still face possible military justice. Without evidence of fear or coercion, charges are definitely possible, maybe even probable."

There is a crime called fraternization, but from my link it applies to officers against enlisted men and not the other way around, and it has as an element that good order and discipline be affected.

[not guilty]

TwelveInchPinhead, do you dispute that the orders to carry out the Caribbean strikes are unlawful?

Here is a comprehensive treatment from Professor Marty Lederman of Georgetown University Law Center, who served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Counsel from 2021-2023 and 2009-2010, and as an Attorney Advisor at the Office of Legal Counsel from 1994-2002. https://www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-ways-caribbean-strike-unlawful/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not Competent, it depends on what orders, but at some level I think they probably are. In addition, they are probably orders to do something unlawful.

That doesn't make your claim, "under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must ... disobey unlawful orders" true.

However, under Article 90 and 92 orders are presumptively lawful, with the burden on the defense to show that the order is unlawful. And following orders is a defense to other crimes under military law, where the government has to prove BARD that either the defendant knew the order was unlawful, or a person of ordinary sense would know that the order was unlawful. So I wouldn't recommend that servicemen disobey these orders.

OTOH, it's arguable that no law requires military members to obey orders from the President, but I suppose that would be a risky thing to rely on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I read the statue differently.

[M L]

So, the Texas redistricting ruling . . . it is really based on a premise of racial discrimination?

Soros (or whoever deep pocket) can gin this up, then a couple of activist judges can just say "das racist" and determine control of Congress, just like that? Seems crazy.

What's the best argument for this decision... someone steelman this for me.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you consider reading the opinion, not just the latest Breitbart clickbait on the case?

[M L]

Yes, but didn't have any time. I skimmed a Texas Tribune article and a Politico article. Haven't seen the Breitbart clickbait yet, do you have a good one you can link? Or maybe 1-2 sentences responsive to my comment? (I kid, we all know you're too dumb to engage on substance.)

[ducksalad]

On the one hand, I agree with you. It's too easy to just throw that out there.

But on the other hand, you do remember Greg Abbott's initial claim for why he needed to redistrict? A letter from some DoJ lawyers saying that the old plan was.....racist.

So now you can steelman why a couple activist DoJ lawyers claiming racism outweigh a couple activist judges claiming racism.

PS Greg Abbott might have been on firmer ground if he'd just given FYTW as his reason for calling for redistricting. I think that's considered a constitutional reason. And if his legislators had had the intelligence and discipline to just automatically say "Republican" when they meant white and "Democrat" when they meant black or Hispanic.

[M L]

Ha, ok. Yeah I was going to say, did Abbot legally need a reason to redistrict? It's a stupid song and dance. "Oh sure you can do that, but you didn't say the right magic words! Which we just pulled out of our ass by the way. Oh and now you're out of time, oh well."

[David Nieporent]

PS Greg Abbott might have been on firmer ground if he'd just given FYTW as his reason for calling for redistricting.

He'd have been on firmer legal ground, but even in our current partisan climate, saying, "We want to engage in extraordinary mid-decade redistricting for no other reason than because Trump is so unpopular nationwide" might have been a hard public sell.

[ducksalad]

I live in Texas and am familiar with local attitudes. Portraying the rest of the country as a woke radical cesspool that needs to be saved from itself actually goes over pretty well. Criticizing Oklahoma as lost to the far left would go over pretty well.

Alternatively, for the more sophisticated parts of MAGA, they can say Trump is enormously popular but the elections are controlled by radical deep staters.

[David Nieporent]

then a couple of activist judges

The author of the opinion is a Trump appointee. (From Texas, so no "blue slip" gibberish can turn him into anything other than a conservative.)

What's the best argument for this decision... someone steelman this for me.

The evidence proves that the Texas legislature was motivated by race in the manner it which it drew up this new map. That's (at least for now) still illegal. Therefore, this map can't be used, and the map reverts to the one that the overwhelmingly red Texas legislature drew up a few years ago. (This is not a case where the judges are picking their own map.)

[Sarcastr0]

I did not alas click through but I believe I saw that it was an independent legal grounds from VRA Section 2.

[M L]

Is this you steelmanning, or is that your actual take? How does the evidence prove they were "motivated by race"?

I will believe it's about race rather than political party/ideology, when the Texas GOP turns away the votes of the 3.6 million Hispanics in Texas who voted for Trump.

[David Nieporent]

Is this you steelmanning, or is that your actual take?

The former.

How does the evidence prove they were "motivated by race"?

The opinion laying out the evidence and the conclusions that follow from it is 160 pages long; if you think I'm going to distill all of that for you down to a blog comment, you're crazier than Laura Loomer; if you're interested, I invite you to read Judge Brown's opinion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1150387/gov.uscourts.txwd.1150387.1437.0.pdf

[hobie]

Texas needs to adopt another SB8 bill. Offer bounties to any Texan who kills a federal judge. Completely unreviewable by the courts.

[grb]

I already see Roberts vigorously nodding up&down in my mind's eye.

[Michael P]

Can we -- at least briefly -- put aside our usual arguments about whether Jews, Christians, Muslims and/or atheists are the truly sick and evil members of modern society, and join together in laughing at "American orthodox Hegelians" (whose cause of choice was the supremacy of St. Louis)?

https://x.com/andresreadskant/status/1990856922489036939

[loki13]

Comey update!

The DOJ filed a new notice to correct the record....

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459121/206/united-states-v-comey/

So here's the thing. When I first read it, I was like ... huh! But then I read the actual transcript (not just the quotes). And then I read what they filed again. And I noticed that they were being very very careful ...

Note the summary-
The complete record eliminates any doubt:
• The foreperson confirmed the vote.
• The Court acknowledged the vote.
• The Court docketed the two-count true bill as the operative indictment.
• Only Count One lacked concurrence;
Counts Two and Three were true-billed by at least twelve jurors.

Notice anything? Yes, they later transform that into the quotes "the two-count indictment," but ... there is no indication that the grand jury ever voted on the two-count indictment.

Or, for that matter, who "they" was that packaged it. Or when it was done. Or when it was given to the grand jury.

Which brings us back to the original issue- the GJ began deliberations with a 3 count indictment and, according to the DOJ, there was never any further contact with the GJ after that point.

And yet ... somehow, they ended up voting on a two-count indictment that they were provided and instructed on.

Best case? This is a misleading filing trying to elide the fact that Halligan talked to the foreperson and got her to sign the new two-count indictment instead of doing it right. Worst case? That there is something else missing. Neither looks good.

Again, hole, digging. Especially given what was already stated to the judge in court. They were better off just sticking to purely legal arguments. IMO.

[Sarcastr0]

So all the lying has got to be fatal in and of itself.

Is there a functional issue here with the 2 count not being voted on, if each individual count was approved?

Or is the initial seed more formalist: 'you didn't follow the rule and then you covered it up and then you lied about covering it up.'

[David Nieporent]

I don't disagree with what you write, but is the sequence of events really in dispute at this point?

1. Halligan presents to grand jury, offers them 3 count indictment.
2. Grand jury returns a no true bill form, signed by foreperson, with the 3-count indictment. But I guess the foreperson tells Halligan that they were actually ok with 2 of the 3 counts.
3. Halligan causes to be prepared a revised indictment with only 2 counts. But she doesn't go back to the grand jury to ask them to vote on it. Instead, she hands it to the foreperson to sign, which he (?) does.
4. Halligan signs both the original (3 count) document and the revised (2 count) one.
5. Halligan takes everything to the judge.
6. The judge says, "WTF is this? Why are there 2 things here, especially 2 that don't match?"
7. Halligan claims that she never saw the 3-count indictment. Judge is like, "Um, you signed it, you bimbo." (I may be paraphrasing here.)
8. Eventually the fact that the no true bill supposedly only applied to Count 1 is conveyed to the judge, who tells the foreperson to handwrite that on the actual document. Foreperson does.
9. Judge accepts the revised 2-count indictment — but Halligan has neglected to mention that the 2 count indictment was never actually shown to or voted on by the grand jury.

And then we come up to all the recent shenanigans, where all of the above is eventually elicited.

[grb]

I was foreman of a jury once. It was different - a criminal trial, not a grand jury - but I'm now sensing I had untold power I never dreamed of.

[John F. Carr]

Depending on the court, you might get to pick a verdict. Polling the jury is not a universal practice. We trust the foreman to fill out the form.

[ducksalad]

I asked above but I'll ask again. Was there a vote on each count separately, and Counts Two and Three passed? Or was it case where there was one vote on the whole thing, with enough jurors saying they would have approved if Count One was deleted and the foreperson just assumed the revised document would be OK?

Also, is it some defect in the federal system that the jury can't indicate approval of some charges and not others? Or was the defect in how the prosecutors chose to frame it?

Extra question: Is part of the secrecy policy to not reveal the actual vote count? Or does the "at least" indicate that someone is estimating how many would have approved the revised document?

[Kenneth Almquist]

The “at least twelve” is standard language. You could explain to the grand jury that it takes a majority to indict, but that means a majority of 23 even if there are actually fewer than 23 grand jurors in the grand jury. It’s simpler to just write “at least twelve” on the forms.

[John F. Carr]

If you put me in the job of US Attorney without training I would think that a proper process. Each charge had the support of the requisite number of jurors. If judges want to say it's not proper, the law is full of procedural quirks and here is one more.

[David Nieporent]

If you put me in the job of US Attorney without training I would say, "Woah; I need someone who knows what they're doing to tell me how to do this."

[jb]

The problem in this case is that no one was willing to do that at the time, no?

[Kazinski]

The Atlanta fed is currently estimating Q3 GDP at 4.2%, that of course is up from Q2 GDP which was 3.8% at an annualized rate.

This of course will probably be construed by the markets as bad news, since it lowers chances for additional interest rate cuts. Be interesting to see what the Fed does if inflation stays in its 2.5%-3.1% range, job growth remains weak, and the economy is growing at ~4%.

Likely stand pat. Mortgage rates are up slightly in the last few weeks.

"The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the third quarter of 2025 is 4.2 percent on November 19, up from 4.1 on November 17. After recent releases from the US Census Bureau and the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, a decrease in the nowcast of third-quarter real gross private domestic investment growth from 4.9 percent to 4.8 percent was more than offset by an increase in the nowcast of the contribution of net exports to third-quarter real GDP growth from 0.57 percentage points to 0.78 percentage points."

https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

The Atlanta Fed's Q2 estimate was about a point low at 2.9%.

[Sarcastr0]

If you're going to do economic analysis use the BEA numbers.

This is a model, not a measure.

Good for day trading, (I guess, not my jam). Not good for an actual pulse of the economy.

[Kazinski]

But the BEA was shut down for a month and a half, and may be late with its numbers.

And as the Atlanta Fed explains the BEA initial numbers are a model too:

"The growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) is a key indicator of economic activity, but the official estimate is released with a delay. Our GDPNow forecasting model provides a "nowcast" of the official estimate prior to its release by estimating GDP growth using a methodology similar to the one used by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis."

And indeed their model and the BEA preliminary estimate model do track very closely. The BEA first release for Q2 growth was 3.0% v 2.9% for the Atlanta fed GDPNow estimate.

It is the best estimate available now.

As usual your complaint isn't really the source, or the accuracy with the numbers, its just something you would rather not see.

[grb]

Kazinski : " ....its just something you would rather not see."

Here's what I see : At this point, Trump's entire economic strategy is telling people not to trust their lying eyes. But it doesn't appear to be working. However there's opportunity in that, as your life mission and this White House frantic need seem to be in perfect alignment.

I can anticipate your objection. Who wants to work in such a cesspool of flakes, losers, leeches, lackies, and wack-jobs? I don't know the state of your reputation, but a position in the Trump White House can't possibly help. Still, it looks like a job you were born for....

[Kazinski]

3.8% growth is pretty good.

4.2% is better.

I don't doubt there are some sectors of the economy lacking, commercial real estate being one, which definitely affects architects, which would explain your sour mood.

IT is another sector where employment growth is declining or lagging.

Hobie has been complaining about the impact of oil price declines for a while, crude is down 15$ A barrel since January.

But the economy as a whole is doing well as evidenced by Consumer Spending (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE), and the stock market, even though its taking a breather now, last record high in the SP500 was set more than a week ago.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Kazinski why do you think IT employment is declining? I don't follow (not in field) but would have assumed growth remained robust. What major fields comprise IT (i.e. Computer Science degree job seekers, etc.)
for purposes of these trend measurements?

[Kazinski]

Here is an article for CNBC its from May but lists graduates by major with the highest unemployment:

Computer engineering 7.5%
Computer science 6.1%
Information systems + management 5.6%
Public policy + law 5.5%

By contrast here are the majors with the lowest unemployment:

Nutrition sciences 0.4%
Construction services 0.7%
Animal + plant sciences 1%
Civil engineering 1%

The overall rate for all majors is 3.6%.

Its likely a combination of overhighering in previous years, and the impact of AI on the industry which can make programmers much more productive.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/16/college-majors-with-the-best-and-worst-employment-prospects.html

[Kazinski]

But I should ask you, what evidence do you have that the economy as a whole is doing poorly?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Kazinski thanks for your response and the article. 'Over hiring in previous years'.
I had thought the industry was soaking up grads faster than they could be produced.

"But I should ask you, what evidence do you have that the economy as a whole is doing poorly?"
Are you replying to me? None. And I never commented otherwise. Sometimes replies get sideways?
Thanks for the article.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This is a model, not a measure."

So are the BEA numbers. An estimate based on a statistical analysis.

They don't actually count all domestic economic activity you know.

[John F. Carr]

In Clarke v. Town of Newburgh the New York Court of Appeals ruled that Newburgh was not entitled to a universal injunction against all applications of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act to all entities. The town had argued that compliance with the law required unconstitutional racial discrimination. The Court of Appeals ducked that issue by ruling that a municipality may not make a facial challenge to a state statute. The town will have to make an as-applied challenge to proposed remedies, some of which might not require discrimination.

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=153121

The intermediate appeals court had ruled that some racial discrimination was allowed in redistricting, but not a lot.

The trial court alleged that at large elections violated state law because a majority-minority district could have been created.

[John F. Carr]

Last sentence should begin "The complaint in the trial court…"

[Poxigah146]

It's a joke when the law employs "logic" that dictates if blacks can't get what they want, they are being discriminated against.

This country is a joke.

Also, Newburgh is a ghetto shithole because of that population. If anything, that's an argument for taking away their voting power, not expanding it.

[David Nieporent]

Loki,

Speaking of they lie they lie they lie, here's Judge Ellis today:

Turning to Bovino, the Court specifically finds his testimony not credible. Bovino appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing “cute” responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions or outright lying. When shown a video of agents hitting Rev. Black with pepper balls, Bovino denied seeing a projectile hit Rev. Black in the head. Doc. 191-3 at 162:21–165:17; Doc. 22-44 (Ex. 44 at 0:10–12, available at
https://spaces.hightail.com/space/ZzXNsei63k). In another video shown to Bovino, he obviously tackles Scott Blackburn, one of Plaintiffs’ declarants. Doc. 191-3 at 172:13–173:7; Doc. 22-45
(Ex. 45 at 0:19–30, available at https://spaces.hightail.com/space/ZzXNsei63k). But instead of admitting to using force against Blackburn, Bovino denied it and instead stated that force was used against him

For those of you not in the know, judges are incredibly reluctant to call someone a liar. They'll strain to avoid it, using euphemisms like "lacks credibility" or (at the strongest) "unbelievable." (Judge Ellis does use some of these as well.) To actually say that someone — particularly a law enforcement officer — was "lying" is a judge going nuclear.

But it goes on:

Most tellingly, Bovino admitted in his deposition that he lied multiple times about the events that occurred in Little Village that prompted him to throw tear gas at protesters. As discussed further below, Bovino and DHS have represented that a rock hit Bovino in the helmet before he threw tear gas. See Doc. 190-1 at 1; Homeland Security (@DHSgov), X (Oct. 28, 2025 9:56 a.m.), https://x.com/dhsgov/status/1983186057798545573?s=46&t=4rUXTBt_W24muWR74DQ5A. Bovino was asked about this during his deposition, which took place over three days. On the first day, Bovino admitted that he was not hit with a rock until after he had deployed tear gas. Doc. 191-3 at 222:24–223:18. Bovino then offered a new justification for his use of chemical munitions, testifying that he only threw tear gas after he “had received a projectile, a rock,” which “almost hit” him. Doc. 191-3 at 222:24–223:18. Despite being presented with video evidence that did not show a rock thrown at him before he launched the first tear gas canister, Bovino nonetheless maintained his testimony throughout the first and second days of his deposition, id. at 225–27; Doc. 237 at 11–17. But on November 4, 2025, the final session of his deposition, Bovino admitted that he was again “mistaken” and that no rock was thrown at him before he deployed the first tear gas canister. Doc. 238 at 9:12–21 (“That white rock was . . . thrown at me, but that was after . . . I deployed less lethal means in chemical munitions.”); id. at 10:20–23 (Q. [Y]ou deployed the canisters, plural, before that black rock came along and you say hit you in the head, correct? A. Yes. Before the rock hit me in the head, yes.”).

In any normal administration, this would be the absolute death knell for this guy's career. In addition to the guy being a total embarrassment, he is unusable as a witness by the government. For Trump, it probably justifies nominating him to the Supreme Court.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Atlantic hurricane season to end with no hurricane landfalls in US "
https://www.wptv.com/weather/hurricane/atlantic-hurricane-season-to-end-with-no-hurricane-landfalls-in-us

[David Nieporent]

Just shows how great Trump is.

[Bunny495]

Anyone know more about this case. The headline is (as usual) is more click bait than an accurate description of what actually happened. Saying "Fugees rapper Pras Michel sentenced to 14 years in prison over illegal donations to Obama campaign" does not mention it was money given to him from foreign interest. This blurb from the article is telling

"Michel obtained over $120 million from Malaysian billionaire Low Taek Jho — also known as Jho Low — and steered some of that money through straw donors to Obama’s campaign.

Michel also tried to end a Justice Department investigation of Low, tampered with two witnesses and perjured himself at trial, prosecutors said."

Michel was found guilty of all 10 counts, including conspiracy and acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government. Guidelines allow for a life sentence. Wonder what EV thinks about the courts turning down a new trial because the defense used AI in closing arguments.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fugees-rapper-pras-michel-sentenced-224033701.html?link_source=ta_first_comment&taid=691f9e153104cf0001a13165&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

[bernard11]

More ICE thuggery and lies.

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed charges against a woman shot by a Border Patrol agent after she allegedly rammed his vehicle in Brighton Park last month,...

The U.S. attorney’s office made the surprise move just hours before a hearing in front of Alexakis, where defense attorneys were expected to describe new texts from the Border Patrol agent who shot Martinez and discuss witnesses for an upcoming hearing over what the agent did with his vehicle after the Oct. 4 incident.

Prosecutors have said Martinez was part of a convoy of civilians who were following agents when she rammed Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum’s vehicle ... prompting Exum to jump out of his Chevrolet Tahoe and fire five shots, wounding Martinez seven times.

Martinez’s attorneys, meanwhile, argue it was Exum who sideswiped Martinez and that his extreme use of force was completely unjustified. They’ve also alleged evidence tampering, saying Exum was inexplicably allowed to drive the Tahoe more than 1,000 miles back to his home base in Maine, where a Border Patrol mechanic attempted to “wipe off” some of the scuff marks from the crash.

[David Nieporent]

Covered above, but yes.

[henrykim]

If you’re thinking about upgrading your outdoor space, Quality Landscaping Geelong makes it easy with their premium lawn solutions. Their artificial turf stays green all year, requiring minimal maintenance, so you can enjoy a beautiful yard without the usual work. Whether it’s for your home or business, their expert team ensures a durable and safe installation that transforms any outdoor area.

[steve9441]

Spotify Premium APK Download

https://www.w3schools.com
[url=https://www.w3schools.com]ffff[/url]
[ddd](https://www.w3schools.com)

[steve9441]

Welcome to Toronto Pearson Airport Taxi, your trusted airport taxi and limousine service connecting you to and from Toronto Pearson International Airport with comfort and reliability. Whether you need a prompt taxi, a luxury limousine, or group transportation, their experienced drivers and diverse fleet ensure a smooth ride every time. Available 24/7 with professional support and competitive flat rates, they value punctuality and customer satisfaction above all else. From child seats on request to free Wi-Fi and GPS tracking, the service is designed to make your airport transfer stress-free and enjoyable. For details on reservations, pricing, or special services, visit us https://torontopearsonairporttaxi.ca/kingston-airport-taxi/ and plan your next journey with ease.

[steve9441]

SpotiffyAPKs.com is a resource where users can explore information about Android apps, including the Latest Version releases and how to get them Free. The site highlights options to Download different files in APK format, including community-created versions like Spotify Mod APK Premium Unlocked alongside standard tools. It also features guides on how to access the Spotify Premium APK and what to consider before installing third-party applications. If you’re curious about alternative Android app packages or want to understand how modified apps work, you can visit us https://spotiffyapks.com/ for clear explanations and links. The focus is on helping visitors find links and details without making claims on official services.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Killing pirates (which drug smugglers are) on the high seas has long been a recognized right -- if not duty -- of nations.

[Sarcastr0]

pi·rate
[ˈpīrət]

noun

verb
a person who attacks and robs ships at sea

[hobie]

I'm still waiting for the DOD to provide proof of who these people were and what they were carrying. Have you seen any proof? They could be muling anything: kids, pot, xanex, fish, boat parts, Ark of the Covenant. So which is it?

[David Nieporent]

It is not, and again, These. Aren't. Pirates.