Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The ACLU has sued the Department of Justice, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security in the Southern District of New York for access under the Freedom of Information Act to the purported legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel setting forth the claimed justification for naval strikes in the Caribbean Sea. https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/12/1.-Complaint.pdf

The purported authorization for these strikes remains a mystery. We are well beyond the sixty day grace period specified by the War Powers Act at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1543(a)(1) and 1544(b). Congress has not authorized further action within that time period.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I doubt the case goes anywhere; state secrets. I do think Congress needs to speak to VEN, whether that is in a classified setting or hearings.

Absent US military deaths, there won't be a lot of traction.

[not guilty]

How do you surmise that a purported exposition of the law by the Office of Legal Counsel falls within the rubric of the state secrets doctrine here, XY?

[Frank Drackman]

I know it's news that will move you and shake you (HT J Depalma) but you don't get to ask us questions.
Oh you can, but don't expect any answers.

Frank

[Armchair]

https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/obama-administration-legal-memos-drone-strikes-96d6fd

[not guilty]

Armchair, what do you think that has to do with the state secrets doctrine? The relevant Obama era OLC memorandum on drone strikes was released, and I have been linking it on these threads for weeks.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB529-Anwar-al-Awlaki-File/documents/16)%20OLC%20Barron-Lederman%20July%202010%20Awlaki%20memo.pdf

The first rule of legal analysis should be: Don't try this with your head up your ass!

[Life of Brian]

From actually... um, reading Armchair's linked article and the ACLU memo it linked, the solitary (redacted) memo you're tossing about is just the tip of the still-concealed iceberg:

The Justice Department recently made available to all senators one memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) regarding the use of lethal force against a U.S. citizen. It is reportedly one of four OLC memos that specifically address the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen away from a battlefield. There are at least eleven OLC opinions related to targeted killing or drone strikes in total, according to a Senate Intelligence Committee estimate made last year. Members of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees were given access to the four OLC memos related to U.S. citizens last year, but no senators have seen any of the seven or more other OLC opinions; the full Senate has access to only one memo.

[Armchair]

Indeed. To repeat.

"But no senators have seen any of the seven or more other OLC opinions; the full Senate has access to only one memo."

Perhaps NG's first rule should be "Read the entire link".

[Frank Drackman]

And in other Insignificant News of the Day............

[Krayt]

Yes, justification for war is insignificant.

[Frank Drackman]

As proven by the fact the US hasn't officially declared one since 1941

[Dr. Ed 2]

Since when is advice of counsel public?!?

[John F. Carr]

More specifically, why does FOIA exemption 5 not apply to this case? Here is the Justice Department's take on exemption 5: https://www.justice.gov/archive/oip/foia_guide09/exemption5.pdf

These are the specific documents requested by the ACLU:

(1) The OLC final opinion concerning the President’s authority to order lethal strikes against drug cartels;
(2) President Trump’s July 2025 directive to DOD authorizing the use of military force against Latin American drug cartels deemed to be terrorist organizations; and,
(3) Any unclassified summaries of the two above documents.

The OLC opinion may be exempt from disclosure as a privileged communication. An unclassified summary of Trump's order ought to be disclosed. The question is whether any meaningful information remains after redactions.

[Krayt]

"We're going to war!"

"That's a big step. Why?"

"It's a secret!"

This doesn't track for me. "They smashed our base on Hawaii", how little we knew ye.

[Bwaaah]

Think of the stature of a "wartime President." After having peacefully settled so many wars, how is one to up one's game? That stature scored a third term for another guy. I know that's against the law now, but laws...they don't have the meaning they used to.

[John F. Carr]

The specific evidence justifying the attacks may be classified to protect sources. The details of the war plan may be classified to preserve operational security. The FOIA does not oblige the government to write explanations. The government must produce records that already exist, reducing them to a sheet of black ink when appropriate.

Congress does have the power to compel disclosure and is moving towards using it.

[David Nieporent]

The details of the war plan may be classified to preserve operational security.

…or texted to a journalist.

[William of Brooklyn]

No, Congress does not necessarily have that plenary power, even if -- as you suggest -- some would attempt to assert and use it. There is a very long and rich legal history on Congress's subpoena power vs executive privilege, and this is one of those areas where the Executive is the most likely to prevail.

[David Nieporent]

The OLC opinion may be exempt from disclosure as a privileged communication.

I have no doubt that they have relied on this in the past and would rely on this again. But who exactly is the OLC's client? Or the client of any lawyer who works for the government?

[David Nieporent]

Since when is advice of counsel public?!?

When one utilizes it as a defense of one's actions.

[Riva]

Congress has not authorized the Commander in Chief to intercept narco terrorists from Venezuela from invading the US with poison and other weapons, Not Guilty? So the fuck what. The Constitution has done that already. And Presidents have never accepted the proposition that every use of force outside U.S. territory is a “War Powers event” that automatically triggers the 60‑day clock. Let’s not also forget that the president has issued executive orders describing Venezuela as “a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.”

[Krayt]

Those who had problems when Obama didn't obey it should also have problems here.

[Riva]

I recall having "problems" with Obama's reckless, irresponsible, corrupt, generally stupid, and otherwise questionable conduct. I do not recall war powers resolution issues being among my concerns.

And, as an aside, is this an example of the "whataboutism" you trolls like to whine about?

[not guilty]

"Congress has not authorized the Commander in Chief to intercept narco terrorists from Venezuela from invading the US with poison and other weapons, Not Guilty? So the fuck what. The Constitution has done that already. And Presidents have never accepted the proposition that every use of force outside U.S. territory is a “War Powers event” that automatically triggers the 60‑day clock. Let’s not also forget that the president has issued executive orders describing Venezuela as 'a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.' "

If another commenter had posted something that ignorant, I would wonder if it was a tribute to Poe's Law.

The powers of Congress, per Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, specifically include the following, doofus:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. [Emphasis added.]

The Necessary and Proper Clause, by its own language, explicitly resolves any illusory conflict between Article I, § 8 and any provision of Article II (including the Commander in Chief provision of Article II, § 2) in favor of the Congress. If your cult leader the President doesn't like that, tough titty!

And the event triggering the 60 day window is not the attack or hostilities, but is the notification to Congressional leaders under 50 U.S.C. § 1343(a), which provides in relevant part:

Not later than 48 hours after any incident in which the United States Armed Forces are involved in an attack or hostilities, whether in an offensive or defensive capacity, the President shall transmit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on the incident . . .

President Trump, to his credit, did make such a report, which triggered the running of the 60 day period specified in § 1544(b).

[Riva]

Tell that to every President who has ever addressed the issue you buffoon.

[Riva]

And, it should be noted that presidents routinely provide communications to Congress after such military operations. They are pointedly never made "pursuant to" the War Powers resolution.

Try being honest for once, Not Guilty, you know, just to see what it feels like.

[David Nieporent]

The Constitution has done that already.

Is that in Article XII?

Let’s not also forget that the president has issued executive orders describing Venezuela as 'a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.' "

Let's not also forget that Trump was lying about this.

[Bob from Ohio]

A page of history is worth a volume of logic.

Just about every president has used the military on his own authority without getting Congress involved.

[not guilty]

"Just about every president has used the military on his own authority without getting Congress involved."

Which led the Congress in 1973 to enact the War Powers Act. It took Prick Nixon's handling (that is, widening) of the conflict in Indochina to persuade Congress to grow a pair and exercise its Article I, § 8 authority to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.

[Bob from Ohio]

The WPA is toothless and hence ineffective

Did it, for instance, stop Trump from bombing Iran? Or Bush I invading Panama? Or Reagan sending Clint Eastwood to Granada?

[Riva]

Congress can do a lot of unconstitutional things. And presidents can and do reject their attempts.

[Riva]

You really are an abysmal idiot, aren't you? In hindsight, probably not the smartest move for you to have skipped all the Con Law classes. But, it's an inescapable part of the abysmal idiot thing noted above.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A google search discloses less recent poll monitoring of the Supreme Court than I expected to find, with most results at least a month or more old. Summaries of results from more-recent polls seem to converge on conclusions that the Court is at a historically low ebb in public approval, but nevertheless doing better than Trump/MAGA's recent election outcomes suggest the right wing generally is doing.

As a general matter, the public seems to think the Court is partisan, and thus shielding Trump from legally proper obligations to obey lower court decisions. I suggest readers check their own choice of polls to review various interpretations and poll response breakdowns.

My conclusion is that Democratic Party political leaders—to the extent that the current Democratic Party even has leaders—are doing less than they ought to hold the Court to political account. By its own choice the Court has blundered into illegitimate political bias. The Court needs pushback against that error, and the pushback required ought to be forthrightly political, to help demonstrate the nature of the Court's error. Play political games, expect political rebuffs.

Democrats should thus start campaigning now to drive Supreme Court poll numbers lower. Democrats should explain what they are doing, and why they are doing it. But they should insist that they will stop when the Court goes back to enforcing the law, and especially to taking up and deciding promptly every lower court case which looks like it got a shadow docket deferment.

It is wrong for the Court to carve out space for Trump/MAGA to continue Constitutionally abusive practices. Lower courts have already decided cases the administration would likely lose if merits decisions were ever delivered. Or if not, the Supreme Court itself would likely lose politically, if it brought publicly evident partisan bias to such decisions.

Either way, the nation would find itself on a path headed toward much-needed Court reform.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As a general matter, the public seems to think the Court is partisan, and thus shielding Trump from legally proper obligations to obey lower court decisions."

Any position that enters the left's official creed automatically polls high, because half the population adopts it as a matter of signaling their political allegiance.

"Democrats should thus start campaigning now to drive Supreme Court poll numbers lower."

They can't really do that, it would be self-defeating: They mean to capture the Court and then have the Court force their agenda on the country under the guise of simply enforcing the Constitution, after all. That only works if the public CARE what the Court says the Constitution means.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Your final paragraph non-sequitur bypasses my point. An overtly political focus takes the debate away from Constitutional issues. Which, of course, might turn out to be a losing political tactic with regard to a properly non-political Court, but not in this case. In this case it is the Court itself which has improperly thrust itself into the political arena. That is how the public now sees it, as poll results disclose. Democrats fighting back in their own properly political domain will thus enjoy an advantage with the public.

More generally, get ready for a rebuff to your minoritarian takes on national politics. You rightly understand that the Court has set itself up as a majoritarian political target.

In due course, a majority which can assemble political power sufficient to make reform happen will come along. If it is a politically wise majority, it will encourage public support, and thus facilitate the reform, by structuring its proposals to avoid partisan overreach—which will, after all, be the topic most salient at any such moment.

[David Nieporent]

They can't really do that, it would be self-defeating: They mean to capture the Court and then have the Court force their agenda on the country under the guise of simply enforcing the Constitution, after all. That only works if the public CARE what the Court says the Constitution means.

I actually agree with Brett on this, minus the "Actually Dems are evil" part. It would be utterly self-defeating for Democrats to try to drive down the legitimacy of SCOTUS now. All that would do is embolden Trump to ignore SCOTUS on the not-frequent-enough occasions that it rules against him.

[Brett Bellmore]

I should remind you that I don't think just the Dems are evil. In conservative circles it's commonly said that we have a "Stupid" party, (The GOP) and an "Evil" party, (The Democratic.) but the problem is that the Stupid party is also evil, and the Evil party is also stupid.

The general tendency of people in government towards evil is a major reason to minimize how much stuff government does, since you can't circumvent it by switching parties.

[bernard11]

Yet somehow all your criticism is in one direction.

[bernard11]

The left as evil monolith again from Brett.

Never mind that there are lots of divisions on what you so blithely describe as the "left," while the GOP almost uniformly kisses Trump's ass.

[Frank Drackman]

I didn't realize until the Bork Hearings (I was 25) that we didn't get to vote on Surpreme Court Judges, I don't know, must have missed that day in Government Class, one day at the Hospital some of the Residents were discussing the Hearings and I said I'd vote for Bork if he was approved, I couldn't believe when someone said we didn't get to vote on them, only the Senators did, that was back before the Internets so I went to my Trusty "1987 World Almanac (& Book of Facts)" (That I got as an X-mas present every year growing up,
Yes Queenie, we celebrated X-mas, not Hanukkah, because my Christian Dad (Google "Dad" it's a thing most White Kids grow up with) decided things like that (No way he was buying 8 days of presents, he was cheap enough with the one)
World Almanac (& Book of Facts, watta ya know, it's still around) was great, a good write up on every State, President, entire text of the Constitution, Economic Stats, and a pretty good Sports section, took awhile to get through the weeds of the Constitution, but they were right.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Forger Court reform and try legal reform.

We need more conservative lawyers.

[not guilty]

Competence in the practice of law requires an ability to analyze (not analize) a situation and argue either side of a dispute with roughly equal facility. It also requires independent thought. Being boneheaded and rigid doesn't lend itself to capable lawyering.

In light of that, is it surprising that the legal profession skews liberal?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually yes -- conservatives are fact-oriented while leftists are feeling-oriented. Where a conservative will say that the wind is 16 MPH from the West, gusting to 29 MPH, the leftist will say that I feel that it is windy today.

[Magister]

Anything conservatives don't like, based on their feelings, is labelled fake news. You know, like the 2020 presidential election results.

[Nelson]

“ conservatives are fact-oriented while leftists are feeling-oriented”

That hasn’t really been true since Roe was decided. QAnon and Pizzagate eroded it even further. And any vestige of fact-based reasoning by conservatives disappeared in 2020 with the whole “stolen election” lies and illegal elector schemes. Even in economics, where conservatives have historically been vastly superior with their free market/international trade/private company orientation, they have abandoned facts and embraced failed mercantilistic and socialist policies.

If you think conservatives are fact-oriented, it’s because you call lies and fantasies “facts”.

[Riva]

Constitutionally abusive practices, Stevie? Nothing was more constitutionally abusive than the lawfare practiced by democrats under the Biden regime, which lawfare is currently being kept alive by various democrat hacks on the federal bench. Nothing except maybe the democrats first insurrection around 1861.

[Commenter_XY]

Deportation update:

2025 stats....closing in on 3MM illegal aliens deported
605K forcibly deported
1.9MM self deported
65K on deck, to be deported

A fleet of 737s will be acquired by ICE to facilitate deportations, starting early next year.

Another 15MM deportations in 3 years will effectively end the illegal alien problem we have in the US. Let's see if Homan can deliver the goods. It looks do-able now. It surely did not look do-able 11/2024.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : ".... deliver the goods."

OK. What goods? So far, the only clear result from this jihad against the brown-skinned is a precipitous climb in public support for immigration. What more do you expect? There will be slightly fewer people picking crops or working landscapes. There may be a drop in crime if measured with an electron microscope, but only the very stupidest among us ever believed this had anything to do with crime. Oh, you hear them frequently enough. Shocked and horrified after a neighbor is dragged off by masked goons, they wail, "I thought they were just going after the the criminals." Gullible, thy name is Trump voter....

But there is an answer which I'll happily provide : As frequently noted, today's Right is all about 24/7 nonstop professional Victimhood™. If a Rightie isn't moaning or whining about something, you better check his pulse. Well, an important subset of that is Zero Sum thought. Your average rightwinger is continually obsessed with the conviction someone somewhere has something which should conceivably somehow be his. This - needless to say - is double-true if the Other has darker skin.

And that's it in a nutshell: God alone knows how, but today's Right worked themselves into towering rage over the idea "those people" were "stealing from them" by cutting our grass or scrubbing our rooms. It does no good to drag out all the economic data that proves otherwise. This is a conviction impervious to data, evidence, or the most obvious common sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, give me a break. Just because you don't like this country having immigration laws doesn't render enforcing them illegitimate.

[loki13]

Well, some of us would say that the simple fact that the administration (and more importantly its goons) are continually breaking the law systematically and enthusiastically is a much bigger concern in order to effectuate ... it's not security theater ... racism theater ... is more worrying.

Which is why, when most of us see videos of American citizens getting arrested because they "look foreign" and roughed up by armed and masked secret police, transported away, and (if they're lucky) released with no transportation, all alone, in a snowstorm ... we get angry.

But people like you? Well, you're all, "Ha ha. Guess you have to break all the laws to enforce immigration laws."

Which is why you cling to your tired talking points, no matter how many times it is pointed out that there is actual evidence (court proceedings, sworn testimony, judicial findings of fact) that this administration just breaks the law and lies ... to the public, to the courts ... continuously.

So please, stop trying to act like you have some moral high ground. You're in favor of lawless thuggery to enforce racist and nativist hate, not just callin' it like it is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Certainly true. Folks who disapprove to illegal aliens should be pushing for reforms to laws to get an immigration system that they like, instead of just insisting that the current laws not be enforced.

And people opposed to ICE tactics as well as other illegal federal law enforcement tactics (not just relating to immigration) should be pushing for laws to make feds accountable.

Both of these require action by Congress.

[jb]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2024/08/22/trump-border-bill-arizona-visit/74898253007/

[Sarcastr0]

Yesterday I shared a story about how ICE was planning to pick up people self deporting, as they crossed from the US to Mexico. People already getting out of the US.
It is a transparent way to goose their numbers. Metrics over efficacy.

You said it was a good thing, actually. Get these people on the record so they couldn't come back in. How exactly that would work didn't seem to matter to you.

It was revealing. No matter how you slice it, it's a ridiculous waste of ICE resources. But you're defending it. You don't even care about effective deportations, in the end!

Bind the outgroup, protect the ingroup. Defend Trump. That's become everything for you.

You're hollow now.

[Brett Bellmore]

It seems pretty direct how it would work, actually. If you're caught illegally immigrating, it disqualifies you from legally immigrating for a significant period of time, because, shocker: We don't want people we know for a fact are willing to break our laws.

I mean, it would be a waste of time if we weren't going to continue to have legal immigration. But we are going to continue to have at least some legal immigration, and knowing that a particular person has in the past been here illegally is thus useful to have a record of.

But, yeah, it looks pretty stupid if you don't want the fact that they broke our laws to be on the record, to potentially be held against them in the future. It's of a piece with regarding our immigration laws as being illegitimate, so that anything done to enforce them is viewed as also illegitimate.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, what an incredible use of resources, to blackball these people because you hate them.

There are no actual impacts to illegal immigration that you seem concerned about, it's just target and bind the outgroup for the jollies.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't blackball them because you "hate" them.

You blackball them because any rational immigration system is selecting for law abiding people, and they've demonstrated by their very illegal presence that they're not law abiding.

But you disapprove of immigration laws, so refuse to treat violating them as evidence that somebody isn't law abiding.

[Malika la Maize]

Imagine an administration using similar tactics to clamp down on tax cheats.

Having said that, count me as one of the persons who thinks immigration laws have to be enforced. It’s nothing to cheer about, it’s sad, but it’s necessary.

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean, if you pay back taxes the government decides you're a habitual tax cheat, and subjects you to greater scrutiny going forward? I think they already do that.

The key thing to remember is that nobody has a right to immigrate to the US, so the government is perfectly entitled to deny the privilege of immigrating here on the basis of heuristics like, "You came here illegally before, we don't think you're a trustworthy person."

[Malika la Maize]

So you’re not that outraged by lawbreaking, you’re outraged by lawbreaking from folks of a lower or non legal status?

[Brett Bellmore]

In the case of taxes the government just wants your money, and won't sweat the details so long as it gets it.

In the case of immigration, the government just wants to avoid immigration by people who will fail to benefit the nation, and since the potential immigrants are nobody the government has any legal or moral requirement to benefit, errs on the side of caution.

"Outrage" plays no part in my thinking here, I'm kind of a low affect guy, I don't outrage easily.

[bernard11]

heuristics like, "You came here illegally before, we don't think you're a trustworthy person.

Terrible heuristic.

[bernard11]

You mean, if you pay back taxes the government decides you're a habitual tax cheat, and subjects you to greater scrutiny going forward? I think they already do that.

Does the government also send thugs to grab people who look like tax cheats off the street and incarcerate them? Do they carry out warrantless arrests?

Do they look for people who did something wrong on their taxes 20 years ago and ruin their lives?

Most important, do they hire a small army of people to harass anyone who might possibly be a tax cheat? No. They don't. In fact, the very same people who are so enthusiastic about enforcing immigration laws actively resist enforcing tax laws.

Wonder why?

[David Nieporent]

In the case of immigration, the government just wants to avoid immigration by people who will fail to benefit the nation,

Fake libertarian thinks the government, rather than the market, can centrally plan what's best for the country.

[bernard11]

You blackball them because any rational immigration system is selecting for law abiding people, and they've demonstrated by their very illegal presence that they're not law abiding.

Oh stop this "law-abiding" shit, Inspector Javert. What a ridiculous, formalistic, rigid, argument.

Do you see no difference between crossing the border illegally to seek a better life picking crops or putting up drywall and robbing a bank?

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you see any difference between renting an apartment close to a good job, and squatting in a house close to a good job? It's just a rigid, formalistic distinction, after all.

I get it: You don't think immigration laws are legitimate, so you don't give a damn if people violate them. That's great, if you can convince enough people to agree with you, illegal immigration will cease to be a thing.

Trump didn't get elected because of the teaming masses agreeing with you...

[not guilty]

Brett, to what Native American tribe did your ancestors belong?

[bernard11]

Do you see any difference between renting an apartment close to a good job, and squatting in a house close to a good job?

Terrible analogy. The immigrant isn't stealing anything, despite your devotion to the lump of labor fallacy.

You don't think immigration laws are legitimate, so you don't give a damn if people violate them. That's great, if you can convince enough people to agree with you, illegal immigration will cease to be a thing.

Actually, I think they are legitimate. I also think there should be some decency and humanity, some forgiveness, in their enforcement.

You want to equate illegal immigration with major felonies - no leniency. I think that's stupid and inhumane, a robotic policy. Here is my opinion. People who have been here for some time, and lived law-abiding responsible lives, should be allowed to remain. If you have to punish them for the great crime of immigrating make them pay a fine or something.

I also think that those who the government wants to deport should have a right to due process, and a right not be detained under terrible conditions. Oddly, with all your contempt for government, you seem to think this is the only area where it is infallible. Wonder why.

You're right about Trump and the teeming masses, of course, but I don't care what those masses think.

[Krayt]

The head deporter is running fucking YouTube ads saying self-deporters may get a chance to re-apply instead of permaban.

What fucked up shit is this? Watch them, in order to permaban? Proper application process is what we want, and this would seem to be a productive enticement.

[David Nieporent]

It seems pretty direct how it would work, actually. If you're caught illegally immigrating, it disqualifies you from legally immigrating for a significant period of time, because, shocker: We don't want people we know for a fact are willing to break our laws.

Um, the entire marketing campaign for this "self deport" proposal is that if you leave voluntarily you won't suffer the legal consequences of deportation.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Um, the entire marketing campaign for this "self deport" proposal is that if you leave voluntarily you won't suffer the legal consequences of deportation."

"Travelers with no immigration or criminal records who don’t pose a public safety risk would still be processed as “voluntary returns”—but others would be detained and face formal deportation proceedings."

So, yeah, it actually does spare you the consequences, unless you already have a criminal or immigration record of some sort. It's a great deal for an illegal immigrant who hasn't otherwise been caught committing a crime, and has never come to the immigration department's attention.

Why should I care if illegal immigrants who have criminal records get caught up in this?

[David Nieporent]

Why should I care if illegal immigrants who have criminal records get caught up in this?

Because, dummy, the entire point of the campaign is to incentivize as many people to voluntarily leave as possible. You as a fake libertarian think that's an important goal, so you should care if the government is actively doing things that undermine those incentives.

[Zarniwoop]

If a person already has a criminal record, what useful information is being added to their file?

Does an otherwise law-abiding person being flagged during the self-deport produce an “immigration record” that then bootstraps to a permaban?

[Sarcastr0]

Again, Brett, your embrace of this policy shows you don't actually care about maximizing deportations, if you ever did.

It's not about the law. Just the cruelty.

[SimonP]

Brett, your wife is Filipino and an immigrant, correct? And she's your son's mother, right?

Are you not concerned that she and/or your son might get caught up in one of these Kavanaugh stops?

[Swede425]

That's a lot of words to say "I support illegal aliens invading this country".
Too bad. They're getting deported.
Get bent.

[Joe_dallas]

Commenter - The trump administration wouldnt have to engage in mass deportations if the Biden administration had not encouraged mass illegal immigration.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they wouldn't have to be AS mass, it wouldn't be so urgent, but, no, he would have, because Biden's wasn't the only administration to encourage mass illegal immigration. He was just the most blatant about it.

[Josh R]

Trump's approval rating among Latinos has cratered (far worse than his drops with the rest of the public), a group that helped him win in 2024. While there were clear majorities supporting securing the border and deporting violent criminals, these folks do not want mass deportations. While affordability is driving the potential blue wave, winning back Latinos will assist Dems as well.

[not guilty]

Here's hoping that Donald Trump's second term as President does as much harm to Republicans as did Richard Nixon's and George W. Bush's second terms.

[Nelson]

“ 1.9MM self deported”

LOLOLOL!!! If you’ll swallow that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. I’m assuming your source is so, so, so credible.

“Another 15MM deportations in 3 years will effectively end the illegal alien problem we have in the US.”

Sure it will. There won’t be any more illegal immigrants, ever, because they will suddenly stop wanting to come to America. Do you honestly believe that?

Illegal immigration will never end. As long as we have the most successful country on the planet, people will want to come here and, as long as they can’t do it legally, they will do it illegally.

The solution is to vastly expand seasonal worker visas with naturalization incentives for compliance, expanding the quotas of legal immigration, and removing the artificial/arbitrary regional caps.

The resources that would be free up could be used to target criminal illegals (Obama had a criminal deportation rate of over 90%, Trump is around a third). But we all know that asking for substantive efforts, rather than performative, is wasted breath with this administration.

[loki13]

"As long as we have the most successful country on the planet, people will want to come here and"

Oh .... oh. Nelson, I think you just hit the nail on the head- not to mention the talking point MAGA will be moving to next year.

"Trump was playing 4D chess. See, he wanted to destroy the economy and make this a terrible authoritarian police state that no one would want to live in ... because that was the ONLY WAY TO KEEP BROWN PEOPLE OUT! Finally, we don't have to worry 'bout them immigrants!!!!"

I'd say that I was joking ... but, c'mon, in the Stupidest Timeline, it's not that far-fetched, is it?

[Michael Ejercito]

https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/12/11/more-on-trump-derangement-and-i-c-e/

1. Again, the targets are illegal immigrants. Until a critic grants his or her audience that simple measure of honesty, I really can’t respect the position.

2. Law enforcement isn’t cruel. This is increasingly a social justice fallacy being promoted to the weak of mind and unsound of ethical principles.

3. If support for the enforcement policy has “plummeted,” it is only because of the slanted reporting by the Axis media and the mischaracterization by its pundits, and the depressing reactions by once functioning minds like that of my friend.

4. “Pogrom”? Seriously?

5. What does “peaceful” have to do with any of this? The issue isn’t peace, the issue is flagrant law breaking, communities and activists that actively enable it, and the government’s duty to enforce the law.

6. Throwing around pejorative words like “cruel”, “lawless”, “terrorizing,” and “pogrom” in deliberate defiance of reality while omitting the rather essential and clarifying adjective “illegal” from the key noun “immigrant” is dishonest and self-indicting advocacy.

7. Siding with a group like Occupy Democrats is, moreover, proof of hysteria and corruption.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ejercito — You do not make question begging better by enumeration to facilitate repetitions of the question begged: what process is in place to distinguish lawbreakers from the others?

Your argument thus becomes advocacy to bypass due process, in service of uncontrollable racist policies enforced by brutality and fear.

[Michael Ejercito]

Ejercito — You do not make question begging better by enumeration to facilitate repetitions of the question begged: what process is in place to distinguish lawbreakers from the others?
We have courts to settle disputes on whether particular persons like George Retes was a lawbreaker. If the government continues to assert Retes committed assault, he is entitled to challenge them in court.

[David Nieporent]

Shorter Marshall: "It didn't happen and if it did it was an accident and anyway it's good that it did."

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is what he wrote.

Mistakes are inevitable in any operation of such scope, and when citizens are mistreated they should have access to compensation.

The remedy for mistaken arrests is usually retrospective, not prospective.

[Nelson]

“ Again, the targets are illegal immigrants.”

Except they, demonstrably and provably, are not. They are people who look like someone who might be illegal. And when presented with proof they are, in fact, legal they detain them anyway.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/indigenous-actress-elaine-miles-says-ice-called-her-tribal-id-fake/

They literally stopped a brown woman who was walking to the bus and said, “Papers, please”. That isn’t targeting illegals, it’s targeting brown people.

“ Law enforcement isn’t cruel”

That is also demonstrably and provably false in a distressingly high number of cases regarding real law enforcement officers. But with ICE, the cruelty is institutionalized and the norm, not the exception. The profiling, guilty-until-proven-innocent, move-them-around-to-thwart-habeas-corpus, tear-gas-the-children tactics are unquestionably cruel.

“ If support for the enforcement policy has “plummeted,” it is only because of the slanted reporting by the Axis media”

Apparently a fascist accent makes “accurate” read as “slanted”. Support has plummeted because Americans abhor bullies and institutionalized cruelty.

I’d continue, but you get the point. Your deeply ill-informed and partisan article is nonsense.

Ideally once the insanity of this racially-driven horror has passed and a saner, more targeted, and accountable deportation strategy (like Obama’s) replaces it, FOIA requests and internal watchdogs will be able to identify the most abusive and corrupt ICE agents and, at the very least, prevent them from ever holding a law enforcement job again.

It isn’t outside the realm of possibility to think that, after four years of unaccountable and illegal behavior, ICE is viewed as so morally and ethically compromised that it will need to be disbanded.

We desperately need immigration enforcement that says “these people don’t belong here, but since we don’t have the resources to legally catch them all, let’s focus on the criminals”. We won’t get it for at least three years or so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So we've seized an oil tanker -- what DO we do with the oil?
For that matter, what do we do with the crew?
And what, exactly, is our legal authority for doing this?

[Armchair]

We did it back in 2014. We can do it again.

Perhaps we put it into the a bank account for the rightful government of Venezuela.

[John F. Carr]

Allegedly there was a warrant for the tanker.

It is not clear this morning if the tanker was registered with any nation. It was flying the flag of Guyana but Guyana denied nationality. Thus the tanker was subject to the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act as a stateless vessel. The Coast Guard could have searched it for drugs.

[loki13]

...except there is no claim that it is involved with, or carrying, drugs.

The administration is clear that this is an oil tanker carrying oil. Obviously, we have the small issue that this administration lies about everything, but assumedly the first convenient lie they would use is drugs- and they went right to oil.

I don't disagree with the question of a possibly stateless flag, but we need to be clear-
1. This wasn't the coast guard.
2. This wasn't a search.
3. This wasn't for drugs.

This was a military operation to seize an oil tanker. Carrying oil. Trump has said (although, again, he lies) that we will keep the oil.

I'm curious if you have legal analysis that would apply to the actual facts given what we have been told to date.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: The Coast Guard is the US Military -- they are uniformed and armed.

2: They get called up to help the USN at times, e.g. the Gulf War.

3: There could be drugs on an oil tanker -- there could be a couple TONS of drugs on the tanker.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is the maritime security, search and rescue, and law enforcement service branch of the United States Armed Forces.[10] It is one of the country's eight uniformed services. The service is a maritime, military, multi-mission service unique among the United States military branches for having a maritime law enforcement mission with jurisdiction in both domestic and international waters and a federal regulatory agency mission as part of its duties. It is the largest coast guard in the world."
wiki

[Josh R]

Leaving the law aside, I'm OK with regime change in Venezuela (assuming the seizure was a means to that goal). I'm not OK with starting a war to effect regime change. But even this seizure is an act of war, it falls far short of the hot war that would bother me.

[MollyGodiva]

US law does not apply outside of the US. The ship was in international waters. This is piracy.

[Bob from Ohio]

NYT reported that there was a federal judicial warrant issued because of violations of Iran sanctions.

[MollyGodiva]

So what? That is a US warrant with US sanctions. Ship was not in US waters.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Ship was not in US waters."

So what?

Completely besides the point.

[John F. Carr]

More generally, UNCLOS 110(1)(d) authorizes boarding stateless vessels. What the boarding state can do later appears to be the subject of some academic debate.(*) The United States has not ratified UNCLOS. Most of the world has. It is meant to restate and clarify customary international law. Violations of UNCLOS, though not violations of US domestic law, may cause foreign diplomats to put on their concerned faces.

(*) See https://www.humanrightsatsea.org/sites/default/files/media-files/2021-12/HRAS_Insight-Briefing-Note_Stateless_Vessels_JUNE_2021_SP_0.pdf

[MollyGodiva]

If the US has not ratified it then we have no authority to enforce it.

[SRG2]

And what, exactly, is our legal authority for doing this?

Dear Leader's order of course. That is always all the legal authority the regime needs.

It's constitutionally up to Congress to provide legal authority. I doubt this falls under the rubric of anything Congress has passed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Dear Leader's order of course. "

NYT reported that there was a federal judicial warrant issued because of violations of Iran sanctions.

Maybe you should go to the doctor about the chronic jerking of your knee.

[SRG2]

Who issued the warrant?

[Bob from Ohio]

According to them a federal judge. IDK which one or where.

[SRG2]

It matters. Bove and Cannon are Federal judges, for example, and both will act according to Trump directives.

[David Nieporent]

Wait, so a federal judge can't issue a so-called nationwide injunction, but can issue a warrant that is valid in the ocean?

[TwelveInchPianist]

For one tanker. Not all the tankers.

[hobie]

Seizing a non-hostile civilian vessel carrying legal goods would seem to me to be illegal. Unless...

a) we are saying it's actually full of drugs
b) we are at war with Venezuela or Cuba (recipient)

I suppose if we claim the right to seize this boat because we are in a declared war, then I guess the galley cook and stevedores are our POWs now. I guess they go to Guantanamo.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure the legalities actually do change a great deal if the civilian vessel was sailing under a false flag.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember "Pirate Radio"?

That involved broadcasting from a foreign-flagged ship outside 12 miles and the FCC got the flag state to waive sovereignty. Which a state can do.

But, legally, is there a difference between Iranian oil and cocaine as both are contraband under International law?

[hobie]

But is Venezuelan oil contraband?

[Malika la Maize]

Officials in Egypt and Iran are protesting the scheduling of a FIFA World Cup match between the two teams next June in Seattle, where local organizers had planned Pride festivities around the match.

Both Middle Eastern countries are culturally conservative. In Iran, same-sex sexual activity can be punishable by death, and other expressions of gender and sexuality may be punished by imprisonment or flogging. In Egypt, morality laws allow for the de facto criminalization of same-sex relationships, and human rights groups report arrests and police harassment of suspected gay people.

In a statement released Tuesday, the Egyptian Football Association said it "categorically rejects the holding of any activities related to supporting homosexuality" during the June 26 match. The association has sent a formal letter to FIFA asking them to take action to "avoid including activities that could provoke cultural and religious sensitivities" among fans at the Seattle game.

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/10/nx-s1-5639958/egypt-iran-seattle-pride-match-fifa-world-cup

[Michael P]

Their hurt feelings and $6 might get them a coffee in Seattle.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe when the match ends up in the Middle East, the host country can erect stone walls to topple onto gays during breaks in the action? Maybe chop hands off thieves every time somebody scores?

On the one hand, I can't say I think they should have a veto over local customs. On the other hand, WTF does this have to do with soccer??? Even here in the US it's being done at least 50% to deliberately offend people.

[apedad]

Why would be it OK for a Middle East country to take some action concerning gays but not OK for Americans to take some action?

And your waffling on American values, " . . . I can't say I think they should have a veto . . . ," is rather . . . disheartening.

[DDHarriman]

Gay pride isn't an American value

[apedad]

Sorry for bringing it up without a trigger warning.

[Krayt]

Freedom is an American value.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're not getting the analogy? Wait until the sporting event is held in your country, then subject the audience and participants to a display that,

1. Has absolutely nothing to do with the sporting event.
2. Is locally legal, and approved of by a substantial portion of YOUR population. (Hated by another portion, of course.)
3. You know will offend the hell out of some of the foreign participants. Which is the point of doing it, after all.

I don't think it's really "OK" on either end, though I think violence, especially lethal, ranks worse than obscene displays and glorifying mental illness.

But, whatever happened to just being good hosts?

[apedad]

Would someone please get Brett a copy of the Constitution and highlight the First Amendment?

They're holding the demostration at this place and date PRECISELY to display their disapproval of the participants' govts' policies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, precisely to be bad hosts. Which, sure, the 1st amendment permits, but hardly obligates.

And I'm saying two can play at that game, and you're really going to enjoy the the halftime activities when it's Iran's turn to host the match.

[apedad]

You and I will be long dead by the time Iran hosts the World Cup.

[loki13]

Shorter Brett-

Free speech is fine, but I think we should muzzle ourselves when we are being good hosts ... and I don't like the speech.

As always, you can easily tell whether someone is a supporter of free speech not by what they say about their beliefs, but what excuses they come up with when it comes to speech they disapprove of.

[Commenter_XY]

What you call 'muzzle ourselves', others would call good manners and discretion (being a good host). Especially at one of the world's biggest events, the World Cup.

[Sarcastr0]

The worst libertarian.

[Brett Bellmore]

Libertarianism is about what you have to let other people do, not about what you have to approve of them doing.

[Krayt]

I heartily approve of gay rights, as a libertarian.

Technically speaking, the government never had any business getting in the way.

[not guilty]

It's not only gay rights that are none of the government's fricking business; adults' consensual sexual practices in general are beyond the appropriate scope of regulation.

At least states impose criminal penalties for adultery. https://legalclarity.org/states-where-adultery-is-still-illegal/

For the first ten years of my married life, my then-wife and I each committed a felony punishable by 5 to 15 years imprisonment each time we engaged in oral sex. That "crime against nature" statute -- which was authoritatively construed to include both fellatio and cunnilingus -- included no marital exception. It was not repealed until 1989 as part of the General Assembly's repeal of the criminal code in its entirety and replacement by a new code.

What business of the State of Tennessee was married couples' intimacy?

[Brett Bellmore]

Absolutely right, as long as we're talking negative rights. My only problem with 'gay rights' is that, in the present legal environment, the moment any group becomes a 'suspect class' everybody else's rights are diminished.

[apedad]

Who's rights are being diminished by, say, having a gay couple get married?

[Josh R]

Anti-discrimination law applies to gays just as much as it does to straights. So, it's "everybody's rights", not "everybody else's rights." (assuming that Brett is arguing there is a right to discriminate).

[Brett Bellmore]

"Who's rights are being diminished by, say, having a gay couple get married?"

Um, bakers in Colorado? Wedding photographers in New Mexico?

[Josh R]

It's anti-discrimination law doing that Brett, not same-sex marriages. The New Mexico case arose before same-sex couples could get married in New Mexico.

[not guilty]

"Um, bakers in Colorado? Wedding photographers in New Mexico?"

The public accommodations statutes at issue in those cases predated same sex marriage becoming legally recognized in either state, Brett, which occurred in New Mexico on December 19, 2013 and in Colorado on October 7, 2014.

Happiness is not a zero sum game, where one couple's joy detracts from the contentment of others.

[not guilty]

My comment upthread should have read "At least eleven states impose criminal penalties for adultery." Mea culpa!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's not only gay rights that are none of the government's fricking business; adults' consensual sexual practices in general are beyond the appropriate scope of regulation.

At least eleven states impose criminal penalties for adultery."

And they all impose criminal penalties for prostitution.

[loki13]

"Absolutely right, as long as we're talking negative rights. My only problem with 'gay rights' is that, in the present legal environment, the moment any group becomes a 'suspect class' everybody else's rights are diminished."

This is, of course, Brettlaw. Let's start with the basics ... this line of jurisprudence is from n.4 of Carolene Products, and reads as follows:

“[P]rejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.”

That, of course, makes sense. Majoritarian rule most effectively protects the interests of the majority. A more searching inquiry might be needed to protect minority interests.

From there, we get "suspect classifications" (in the EPC sense on the term). These are classifications that we are familiar with- race, religion, national origin. Those classifications are subject to strict scrutiny. Alienage (citizenship) as well, mostly (it's complicated because of the enumerated immigration power and distinctions involving undocumented immigrants ... as well as an outlier case involving education).

Other classifications are also suspect, but only subject to intermediate scrutiny. Gender and legitimacy are there.

So, where did Brett go wrong? Two areas.

First, while there are legal protections for sexual orientation (and this can be based on state law/constitution, local law, or construction of a federal law equating sexual orientation with gender), there is no EPC suspect class for sexual orientation. If someone wants to point me to that Supreme Court holding, please do.

Second, while the derivations of suspect classes comes from the concept of protecting "discrete and insular minorities," the actual suspect class is simply that. What does that mean?

If GENDER is a suspect classification, that means that the classification itself is suspect- it doesn't matter if it's about women ... or men. Same with race (which is why it isn't accurate to say it's a "reverse racism" EPC claim, it's just an unlawful racial classification). Same with all of them- it's the classification that is suspect.

Now, why is it that most of the classifications that are suspect tend to be about ... certain groups, and not, for example, White Men?

You might want to look at Congress and the Executive, and then read Carolene Products again. Not exactly rocket science. The political process already protects those with power, if you know what I mean.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a lot of words to confirm what I said.

[loki13]

If you read that and think that it confirms what you said, then you either didn't read it, or your reading comprehension is truly atrocious, because that was a true fail in understanding.

[not guilty]

"Now, why is it that most of the classifications that are suspect tend to be about ... certain groups, and not, for example, White Men?"

Actually, in two of the seminal cases (pun intended) recognizing sex as a quasi-suspect classification requiring application of intermediate scrutiny, the disadvantaged plaintiffs were men.

In Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975), Ruth Bader Ginsburg successfully argued to SCOTUS that the provisions of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 402(g), requiring that a grant of survivors' benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband and father covered by the Act both to his widow and to the couple's minor children in her care, but that granted benefits based on the earnings of a covered deceased wife and mother only to the minor children and not to the widower, violates the right to equal protection secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Plaintiff there was the widower of a woman who had died in childbirth, who had been denied the § 402(g) benefits which were available only to women.

In Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), an Oklahoma statute prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. SCOTUS applied intermediate scrutiny and held that the beer statute invidiously discriminated against males 18-20 years of age. Id., at 204.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Criticizing other people's speech in not un-libertarian.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — In 1936 Germany had notions to impose its national customs on some of the would-be Olympic competitors. Germany might have done better to let those competitors impose foreign customs on the Germans. It could have contributed to make the ensuing national catastrophe less acute, maybe even have avoided it, had the foreign customs caught on. However unlikely that might seem, it would at least have prevented the 1936 Olympics from becoming a byword in the annals of bigotry.

Put the focus on the bigotry, not on the hospitality, and that analogy will become clearer to you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But, whatever happened to just being good hosts?"

Hey, maybe we can have a bunch of Koran-burning events as well. Maybe line the streets with depictions of Muhammud?

[David Nieporent]

3. You know will offend the hell out of some of the foreign participants. Which is the point of doing it, after all.

In delulu Brettworld, yes. Here in the real world, pride festivities, like St. Patrick's Day parades and Chinese New Year festivals and Cinco de Mayo events, are celebrations for the local community, and are not about what a few haters think.

[loki13]

In Brettworld, St. Patrick's Day parades are only held because of hatred toward Alcoholics Anonymous.

[David Nieporent]

But, whatever happened to just being good hosts?

I will be charitable and assume that Brett simply hasn't read the article. They are not holding gay orgies on the midfield line at halftime. These are already scheduled events being held outside the stadium. From the link:

The June 26 match coincides with the city's annual Pride festival, which is organized independently of the World Cup. That weekend, a Pride parade will march from downtown to the large public festival at the Seattle Center.

Oh, and:

Plans for the 2026 World Cup have been in progress for years, and games, like the June 26 match in Seattle, have long been on the schedule. But organizers did not know which teams would play in the game until this past Saturday, after FIFA held a draw to determine which teams would play in each group.

So, as usual, Brett Conspiracy Theories rely on not knowing any actual facts and just mindreading things based on nothing.

[Absaroka]

Similarly, we shouldn't have a billboard or rallies supporting RKBA, because many countries object to that?

[jb]

Brett thinks throwing a parade is similar to killing people for their sexual preference. Good stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

Brett expressly stated that they were not remotely of the same magnitude, but doing either in order to cause offense is still, in common, deliberately causing offense.

[jb]

Which part of your original post says they're not remotely the same magnitude? You do say they're done deliberately to offend people, which honestly just makes it work because you continue to treat them as kinda similar acts.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't think I HAD to state that I didn't think it was OK to topple walls on gay people and cut off the hands of thieves, until Sarcastr0 leapt to that conclusion.

[David Nieporent]

On the one hand, I can't say I think they should have a veto over local customs. On the other hand, WTF does this have to do with soccer??? Even here in the US it's being done at least 50% to deliberately offend people.

Shorter Brett: "I don't like furriners, but actually they're right about teh gayz."

[SimonP]

I cannot fathom why you, of all people, take issue with an event being done to "deliberately offend people."

That is the entire MAGA ethos. It's why you write much of you write here. It's why Trump says much of what he says, and its being deliberately offensive is usually cited to wave off whatever concerns might be raised about its content (e.g., isn't that illegal/unconstitutional/a flagrant violation of IHL, etc.).

"Deliberately offensive" is how things are done now. Don't be such a faggot-ass pussy bitch about it.

[Bored Lawyer]

Too bad there is not a gay tolerant country in the Middle East.

Oh, wait!

[SimonP]

Given the way they treat Christians, Muslims, Arabs, and even Ethiopian Jews, I'm not sure that I would feel comfortable walking around any part of Israel hand-in-hand with my partner.

Some resort or some clubs in Tel Aviv? Maybe? But not many places.

Never mind living there. They're not heading in the direction of becoming more gay tolerant. It'll just take some time for that shoe to drop. Probably will have to wait until the Palestinians are all dead or expelled.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, you know as much about Israel as Dr. Ed knows about American history.

[SimonP]

And you're a fat pedant with nothing to say, so.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, I may be fat, but what was the other thing?

Your claims about Israeli society are laughably ignorant. It would be like a guy from Japan discussing whether it's safe to visit Charlotte, NC based on some stuff he read about the civil rights movement and that story about the Ukrainian refugee being killed on that city's subway by that crazy guy. Israel is a modern secular liberal democracy. As long as a gay person stays out of the Palestinian territories, it's as safe as visiting any European country.

[Swede425]

We care about soccer now?
I did not know that.

[Malika la Maize]

Didn’t you hear? They flattered Dear Leader so now it’s huge and should replace American football. Better watch your wrongthink before you get the MTG treatment!

[Swede425]

I don't really watch sports on tv.
Unless you count competitive fishing.
And cat curling.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't the cats get cold?

[not guilty]

"Officials in Egypt and Iran are protesting the scheduling of a FIFA World Cup match between the two teams next June in Seattle, where local organizers had planned Pride festivities around the match."

Well boo fricking hoo!

I am reminded of the late Lewis Grizzard's rejoinder to Yankees who move south and then kvetch about how much better it was whence they moved from: Delta is ready when you are!

[hobie]

What's next? They whine that all the women are walking past the stadium without hijabs? That the match is within 1000ft of a synagogue?

They can pound sand.

UNLESS, the pride folks did this purposely to antagonize the two countries and their fans. Then I would say they should change their plans for hospitality's sake. But it does not appear that this is the case.

[David Nieporent]

UNLESS, the pride folks did this purposely to antagonize the two countries and their fans. Then I would say they should change their plans for hospitality's sake. But it does not appear that this is the case.

As noted above (and in the article) they absolutely did not. They could not have, because they had no idea which countries would be there.

[Josh R]

They can modify the schedule to have some other matchup on that day.

[David Nieporent]

They can modify the schedule to have some other matchup on that day.

They cannot. That's not how the WC works. I mean, it's not that they literally can't; they could rework the entire World Cup if they wanted. But there are 72 games in the group stage spread out over 16 cities in 3 countries over 2 weeks; they can't just move a matchup.

https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/mens/worldcup/canadamexicousa2026/articles/match-schedule-fixtures-results-teams-stadiums

Not to mention the can of worms it would open up if participating countries could whine into getting their schedules changed.

[Josh R]

Switching with the Belgium/New Zealand game (scheduled in Vancouver on the same day) would suffice.

[Bob from Ohio]

Why are letting an Iranian team in at all? We just bombed them last summer! They've been an enemy since 1979.

[Michael P]

The DOJ is reportedly suing a Virginia school district for violating the 14th Amendment rights of two (or three?) male students, after a federal judge blocked their suspension as violating Title IX. (The school district may have piled religious discrimination on top of sex discrimination to boot.)

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amy-curtis/2025/12/10/harmeet-dhillon-loudoun-schools-religious-liberty-n2667641

[DDHarriman]

Of course the Democrats threw the book at the Christians accused by the tranny and not the Muslim.

That's Democrat justice in a nutshell and where our future lies if we don't do something about the menace.

[ThePublius]

I don't know why the tranny wasn't punished for making a video in a locker room.

[Malika la Maize]

I think the story was the trans person went into the locker room, words were exchanged, they took out their phone to tape the other students’ behavior/comments.

[John F. Carr]

Here is the Justice Department's press release: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-loudoun-county-violating-equal-protection-christian-students

The government is trying to intervene in S.W. v. Loudoun County School Board, case 1:25-cv-01536 in the Eastern District of Virginia.

[John F. Carr]

(duplicate comment deleted)

[Malika la Maize]

Days before Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House, Andrew Tate got some good news.

Mr. Tate and his brother, Tristan, swaggering influencers in the so-called manosphere, had been under criminal investigation in Romania since 2022, accused of coercing women into pornography. Andrew was also accused of rape and of having sex with and beating a 15-year-old. The brothers, American and British citizens, had been barred from leaving Romania while prosecutors built their case.

Now, in a Jan. 14 text message, Mr. Tate indicated that help was on the way.

“I had word from The Trump admin that theyre on top of things,” Mr. Tate wrote to someone close to him, in a message reviewed by The New York Times. “Ive been told I’ll be free soon but Trump needs to see me in Miami,” he added.

The next month, an extraordinary order came down from the highest levels of the Romanian government, a Times investigation found. The prosecutors were told to find a compromise with the Tates. Despite their misgivings, they lifted the travel restrictions, a move that Romania’s prime minister thought would appease the Trump administration.

“We’re massively back,” a grinning Mr. Tate announced in a video recorded for his followers on Feb. 27, as a private plane whisked the brothers to Florida.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/us/andrew-tate-barron-trump-romania.html

[DDHarriman]

Now you're trading in grocery store gossip? lol all the other hoaxes fall flat?

[Malika la Maize]

So Tate was lying?

[loki13]

Well, it's pretty simple-

If you are sex trafficker, narco-trafficker, corrupt politician, or engage in fraud ... Trump has your back.

On the other hand, if you happen to have some oil that we want ... watch out. "Those are some nice fishing boats you got there; would be a shame if we have to position massive military assets around your country in order to blow them out of the water."

Finally, always remember he is the President of Peace. "Vlad! Do you mind giving some sweet business deals to Jared and a few of my friends? Because if you do, I can offer you a Piece of Ukraine."

[apedad]

Justice Department Marks Texas’ Successful Completion of Reforms at Thirteen State-Operated Facilities for People with Intellectual Disabilities

Today, the Justice Department joined with the State of Texas in asking a federal district court to dismiss a long-running case (since 2005), that saw the State reform thirteen State-operated facilities for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD).

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-marks-texas-successful-completion-reforms-thirteen-state-operated

Frank D, help me out here.

Wasn't there a Bloom County storyline back in the day about Texas executing the mentally retarded?

[ThePublius]

"Minnesota: ‘Nearly Every’ [89%] Somali Household with Children Is on Welfare"

"For example, 89 percent of Somali-headed households with children in Minnesota are on one or more forms of welfare, as 86 percent are on Medicaid. About 62 percent of Somali households with children in the state are on food stamps, while 23 percent take cash welfare.

“Nearly every Somali household with children … receives some form of welfare,” CIS researcher Jason Richwine writes.

Again, the gap between Somali households with children on welfare and native-born American households with children on welfare in Minnesota is wide.

Only about 3-in-10 native Minnesotan households with children take one or more forms of welfare, including only 6 percent on cash welfare, 10 percent on food stamps, and 28 percent on Medicaid."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/12/10/data-81-percent-somali-households-in-minnesota-are-on-welfare/

Good article, lots of charts and graphs, and sources cited.

[John F. Carr]

How does the 89% figure compare to families of low-skill immigrants from other poor, non-English speaking countries?

[ThePublius]

That is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Malika la Maize]

Well, and I was thinking specifically refugees. The good news is there seemed to be some improvement there as the percentage of long time residents was smaller than for those who came in in the last ten years.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"... families of low-skill immigrants from other poor, non-English speaking countries?"

Those with an average IQ of 68, or those with an average IQ closer to the average of 100, if not above it?

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed has firsthand experience with a 68 IQ.

[hobie]

Dear AI, how many hasidic jewish households receive public assistance?

"A significant number of Hasidic Jewish households rely on public assistance, with studies showing high rates of SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid use, particularly in New York, due to larger family sizes and lower incomes, with some specific villages seeing over 60% of households on SNAP, far exceeding state averages, though exact total numbers vary by location and study"

[ThePublius]

Yes, they are a problem, too.

[hobie]

Well, if you went after them as consistently as you do the neegroes, your arguments might be more persuasive. And you'd be less likely labelled as a racist.

[ThePublius]

Just because I haven't opined on the topic here doesn't mean I'm not aware nor care about it. I'm a native New Yorker and I'm well aware of the issue. I've had rocks thrown at my car driving through Monsey in Rockland County on the Sabbath.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Silly me, I would have thought that throwing rocks would constitute "doing work."

[Michael P]

Hallucinating hater hobie takes care to blame the Jews in a story about Somalians, of course.

[hobie]

I got it from MAGA-skewed Grok! Need I say more?!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Michael, facts matter.

IF a Jewish community is doing such things, they should be condemned for it. And if stuff like this is happening, it does explain some of the antisemitism which I have never understood.

I'm a Puritan -- why give the Devil something to use?

[Malika la Maize]

Notice the story was not about any nationality or ethnicity. Pubes brought up Somalis. Then hobie brought up Hasidic Jews. *Then* Mikie Q cried foul!

[hobie]

Yeah, MichaelP! Why didn't you cry foul when Pubes punched down on the neegroes?

[Michael P]

Put down the crack pipe. The headline of the story at the start of this thread is "Minnesota: ‘Nearly Every’ [89%] Somali Household with Children Is on Welfare".

You of course come in to white-knight the antisemite.

[Sarcastr0]

Same shit as how you think blacks are inherently more criminal.

You are shit at statistics, and don't understand confounding variables.

There are more bigoted posters, but most of those are shitposters.

You may be the most sincerely bigoted person on here.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Among the shitposters, Bellmore may be the only person on here. We need a census of our bots.

I like Bellmore because he at least publishes under his own name.

[ThePublius]

You only attack and don't reasonably refute anything I say.

Statistically, blacks are more criminal that the rest of the population. Fact. Prove me wrong.

I'm not shit at statistics, I have studied and employed my knowledge of statistics and probability throughout my engineering career.

I am not a bigot. That's just you - shitposting. You can't win an argument with name calling.

[hobie]

'Statistically, b̶l̶a̶c̶k̶s̶ the poor are more criminal that the rest of the population. Fact.'

'Statistically, blacks are m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶r̶i̶m̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ arrested more that the rest of the population. Fact.'

Take your pick of them two fixes, champ.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Poor White mothers are not afraid of their sons getting killed "in some stupid gang thing."

[Brett Bellmore]

"'Statistically, b̶l̶a̶c̶k̶s̶ the poor are more criminal that the rest of the population. Fact.'"

It is indeed a fact. But stating an additional truth is hardly a 'fix'.

"'Statistically, blacks are m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶r̶i̶m̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ arrested more that the rest of the population. Fact.'"

You'd have something vaguely like a point if it weren't for victimization surveys confirming that blacks are, indeed, more criminal than the rest of the population. According to blacks themselves, who are the primary victims of black crime!

One would kind of hope that committing crimes more often would lead to being arrested more often.

Now, I will add that, statistically, most, perhaps all, of this is driven by blacks disproportionately living in high crime areas, where people are generally poor, and the whites ALSO both commit crime and get arrested more often than the general population. This is known as the racial invariance hypothesis and it's got a lot of evidence behind it.

I happen to live in a low crime neighborhood that runs roughly 50% black, and I can assure you from my own personal experience that similarly situated blacks are no more likely than whites to act criminally.

[hobie]

Well, I happen to live in an all black neighborhood historically linked to high crime, and I'm afraid I just don't see any. Granted, my house has 47 bullet holes on the front. So it hasn't always been safe.

I guess we're just still stuck with the bet the Dukes made in Trading Places: Is Eddie Murphy just a typical nigger programmed to crime; or was he made that way?

[Michael P]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[ThePublius]

O.K.

'Statistically, b̶l̶a̶c̶k̶s̶ the poor are more criminal that the rest of the population. Fact.'

Yes, but even among the poor, blacks are disproportionately represented as criminals.

'Statistically, blacks are m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶r̶i̶m̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ arrested more that the rest of the population. Fact.'

Yes, because they are committing more crime than the rest of the population.

Make sense?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0, Blacks ARE statistically "more criminal" -- take the statistic on murder, considered the most reported crime because dead bodies are hard to hide.

Something like half the murders are committed by Blacks, who are only about 12% of the population. And the majority of the victims are also Black, to the point where there is a racial difference in the leading cause of death for young men.

Every Black mother I know is terrified of her son getting killed "in some stupid gang thing." White mothers aren't.

[Malika la Maize]

Men are far more disproportionately murderers than women. What does that mean for you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it means if you're walking home from the corner store, and hear footsteps behind you, glance back, and see a woman, you'd rationally relax a bit. Why, what does it mean to YOU?

[Malika la Maize]

I think folks like Dr Ed like to talk about the disproportionate racial crime stats but not gender ones. What does you think that means?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know, he's been a grey box to me for so long I can't really speak to his 'reasoning', if you want to call it that.

[Malika la Maize]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struggled with the question of how states should assess intellectual disabilities to decide which capital defendants are spared the death penalty…

The issue in the Alabama case the justices heard on Wednesday is how states and lower courts should resolve cases in which defendants have taken I.Q. tests multiple times and received varying results, as well as the extent to which they must consider a broader evaluation of evidence in deciding if a person is disabled.

The case deals with Joseph Clifton Smith, who was sentenced to death after being convicted of murdering a man he planned to rob in 1997. In the years before and after the murder, Mr. Smith took five I.Q. tests with scores ranging from 72 to 78. The key part of Alabama’s law on mental disability turns on whether defendants score 70 or lower on the test. But a lower court found Mr. Smith was intellectually disabled, in part because the tests have a margin of error.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/us/politics/supreme-court-death-penalty-disability.html

[ThePublius]

Interesting.

"Estimates for average IQ in Somalia vary, often cited around 68 by some sources, placing it low on global scales, though IQ is complex and influenced by education, health, and environment, making direct national comparisons difficult and often debated due to testing limitations in diverse populations."

So we can never put to death the average Somalian.

[Malika la Maize]

Wow, you really have it out for these people!

Also, a high IQ person such as you might want to think about this part of your own quasi-source: making direct national comparisons difficult and often debated due to testing limitations in diverse populations

[ThePublius]

Yes, I understand that. I'm just on the Somali theme due to the news of fraud in Minnesota becoming national news lately. Glenn Reynolds, et.al. at Powerline Blog have been reporting on this for years but it's only just recently become a national story. They extent of the fraud is staggering.

[Malika la Maize]

If your interested in fraud and other white collar crime you might want to peruse the current administrations pardon list.

Also, regarding your quote:

“In 2009 Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, and Han L.J. van der Maas conducted a new analysis of IQ in sub-Saharan Africa, which was critical of many of Lynn and Vanhanen's methods.[7] Wicherts et al. concluded that Lynn and Vanhanen had relied on unsystematic methodology by failing to publish their criteria for including or excluding studies. They found that Lynn and Vanhanen's exclusion of studies had depressed their IQ estimate for sub-Saharan Africa, and that including studies excluded in "IQ and Global Inequality" resulted in average IQ of 82 for sub-Saharan Africa, lower than the average in Western countries, but higher than Lynn and Vanhanen's estimate of 67.“

[ThePublius]

Oh, good, so now we can kill them if they murder!

[Malika la Maize]

I knew you’d be ecstatic!

[ThePublius]

It's not about Somalis, it's about murderers.

[Malika la Maize]

Sure!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"average IQ of 82 for sub-Saharan Africa, lower than the average in Western countries, but higher than Lynn and Vanhanen's estimate of 67.“

You do know that there are distinct and different populations in sub-Saharan Africa. Kenyans are bright. Somalis, not so much.
Both are Black Africans.

[Estragon]

So true. You can tell by the shape of the skull.

[bernard11]

You do know that the estimate of a 68 IQ is utter bullshit.

Please stop quoting it.

[Mr. Bumble]

@Publius:
Prof. Reynolds is at Instapundit.
Scott Johnson is the one who has been reporting on the Somali fraud at Powerline.

[ThePublius]

Ah, you are correct, sir! Thank you.

[hobie]

You have to be a little more circumspect when you go after the native neegroes. But these foreign neegroes? Fuck, you can go full Charlie Kirk on them.

[Ska]

Wouldn't going "Person's Name" on someone be better phrased using the killer's name and not the victim's? It's an interesting verbal swap, making the murder victim the description when referencing the actions of his killer.

[hobie]

If Charlie Kirk's killer was also racist then, yes, he'd also qualify to be in my observation

[Sarcastr0]

Estimates for average IQ in Somalia vary, often cited around 68 by some sources

This isn't true, you didn't show it was true. You're just so committed to being a fucking racist you have decided it's true.

You are a vile human being.

[ThePublius]

It came off of google. On what basis do you dispute it?

[ThePublius]

"You are a vile human being."

Likewise, I'm sure.

[ThePublius]

Here, google this:

"average IQ of Somalians"

[Malika la Maize]

Why would someone google that? Good lord.

[hobie]

Yeah let's google something like that. Looks like Minnesota has the 5th highest IQ. Pretty good. And we all know who's at the bottom. What's surprising is California is also at the bottom with all the MAGA states.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-iq-by-state

And I know what you're thinking. But if you check percentage of African American population by state, you will see that doesn't correlate because the northeast states are chock full of neegroes, yet they're smart AF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_African-American_population

[TwelveInchPianist]

One of the first links is this, which says it's 67.7.

I'm sure glad I'm one of those guys that tends to be skeptical of data, and not one of those people who trot out data points as if they were the be-all and end-all of veracity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

68 is more significant than you might think because it is two standard deviations below the norm. IQ is a Bell Curve, it is not linear. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#/media/File:IQ_distribution.svg

68 is about 2%

[LawTalkingGuy]

I love it when people trot this stat out. Because it’s so incredibly ironic. The willful stupidity required to believe that the average person in a particular country has an intellectual disability is so great that it leaves one to wonder about the proponent’s intellectual functioning.

[loki13]

I view it as a useful shorthand.

"No, I don't really travel outside of America, and I am a racist. Why do you ask?"

[Brett Bellmore]

I was under the impression that, "You'd have to be stupid to do that" was not a defense, but "You're so stupid you didn't KNOW you were doing that" is a defense. Similar to the insanity defense.

If the guy was smart enough to plan to rob somebody, he was smart enough to understand that if you whale on somebody long enough they're gonna die, and that it's wrong to do that.

So I don't think being stupid gets him off the hook for beating his robbery victim to death.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Regardless of IQ, I do not think any commenters here have ever presented explicable grounds for stand-your-ground laws, except: If you decide to shoot, be sure to make it deadly, so your victim cannot testify against you.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Regardless of IQ, I do not think any commenters here have ever presented explicable grounds for stand-your-ground laws, except: If you decide to shoot, be sure to make it deadly, so your victim cannot testify against you."

Well, we know you're an obsessed idiot, so saying something that stupid IS in character.

Stand your ground laws are based on the common moral belief that nobody, when attacked, should be obligated to retreat from a place they're entitled to be. That "when attacked" is a pretty important part of it, of course: Stand your ground laws don't entitle you to be the aggressor.

It's true, of course, that dead men tell no tales, so the survivor of a clash has some evidentiary advantage. But, that's the case regardless of where the clash occurs, it has nothing whatsoever to do with stand your ground laws.

[hobie]

That ground you stand on is not worth the life of you or the other man. It is so, so easy to simply walk away.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, that's a valid point, which the person attacking you should have considered before attacking you.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with Brett here. "If someone attacks you in a place where you have every legal right to be, you should run away instead of defending yourself on pain of being criminally prosecuted" is poor policy and an immoral position.

[Sarcastr0]

I disagree inasmuch as the force used to defend yourself isn't lethal.

But I have no issue with a policy that says our primary priority is avoid killing others, when there are other options.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have no problem with you adopting such a policy. I'd probably follow that, too, unless maybe I got the impression my family was in danger, in which case all bets are off.

But the question isn't what policy you should adopt, it's what policy the law should enforce. And the law in most places does NOT require you to retreat from a place where you're entitled to be, to avoid having to kill an attacker. The law in most places privileges the innocent over the guilty.

[Sarcastr0]

I know what the law is, Brett.

You often do this two step between is and ought.
I don't have that confusion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The law in most places privileges the innocent over the guilty.

Bellmore — A law premised on a notion that in a deadly encounter between adversaries the survivor is more likely the innocent party, is not a law premised on moral principle at all. It is a law to foreclose legal process to identify whether any party was innocent.

[David Nieporent]

Bellmore — A law premised on a notion that in a deadly encounter between adversaries the survivor is more likely the innocent party, is not a law premised on moral principle at all.

There is no such "premise" as between the adversaries. There is such a premise as between a criminal defendant and the government.

It is a law to foreclose legal process to identify whether any party was innocent.

Our criminal justice system presumes that an accused person is innocent; it doesn't initiate process to identify "whether" someone is innocent. If one is prosecuted, the burden of proof is 100% on the government to prove that one is guilty.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What if the other option is to perform a sex act on the aggressor?

But the idea that we would allow people to force others to leave areas where they have a right to be, on pain of criminal punishment, seems odd.

[apedad]

"Stupidity" is not equivilent to intellectual disability.

And since Pubs is monitoring English usage (below), it's 'wail' not 'whale.'

[ThePublius]

Funny! Yea, I live in "Whaling City," so I get it. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

Merriam Webster: 'Whale' vs. 'Wail' vs. 'Wale'

"Whale is also a verb for the action of hitting something (such as that gambling table, or a punching bag) forcefully and repeatedly. This might be surprising to those people who misuse the identically (or, in some dialects) similarly pronounced verbs wail or wale with the meaning of "to hit." The verb whale can also imply attacking vigorously or repeatedly, as in "the team whaled on their opponent 20 to 2"; a person might also "whale away" during a debate (meaning they are verbally attacking their opponent and showing no mercy) or "whale into/at" that person with whom they are debating."

[apedad]

Good catch and I'm always open to learning.

[LawTalkingGuy]

When intellectual disability is raised in a capital proceeding it doesn’t let anyone “off the hook” it simply takes the death penalty off the table. They can still get LWOP. Also if you read Atkins the idea isn’t that they don’t know “right from wrong” generally, it’s that they’re slightly less morally culpable i.e. culpable enough for prison but not culpable enough to kill. Relatedly, the deterrent effect of the death penalty on the intellectually disabled community is zero.

Plus there’s a major concern that the intellectually disabled can’t adequately assist in their own defense. Struggles with communication, memory, and appropriate emotional reaction make it more likely that a wrongful conviction or inappropriate sentence will be imposed. It’s kind of a safety valve to make sure we at least don’t kill someone for the “crime” of being too disabled to help defend themselves in court.

[MollyGodiva]

Easy solution. End the death penalty, it is barbaric and has no place in modern society.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? I'd be down with that, as a legislative policy choice. I'm just opposed to it as a judicial usurpation, as the death penalty unambiguously has constitutional approval.

[Z Crazy]

Whats wrong with being barbaric to the crook and the muggewr and the carjacker and the gang member?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The IQ test was only intended to be accurate between something like 80 and 120. To do what Alabama wishes, you'd need a test where 70 was average, i.e. a test normed at 70.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Joseph Clifton Smith, who was sentenced to death after being convicted of murdering a man"

The killer gets a name, the victim is just a "man"

Smart enough to murder, smart enough to hang.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Bob’s white-knighting for victims again I see.

[Bob from Ohio]

I suppose I am, better than for the murderer.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah but you do that too whenever you dislike the victim or like the perpetrator.

[Armchair]

Let's run a hypothetical past you all.

Let's say that the GOP Congress decides to make a new "non-partisan" agency that is independent of the Executive Branch. The President appoints a board of directors for this agency, and they are confirmed by the current Congress. The directors have 20 year terms, and cannot be removed by the President. Congress then shifts all taxation authority, power, capability, etc the current IRS has and shifts it over to this new "non partisan" agency. The President has no authority over this new agency.

Is there anything here that violates separation of powers?

[not guilty]

That would depend in part on what "shift[ing] all taxation authority, power, capability, etc the current IRS has" means.

Article I, § 7 of the Constitution states that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." Enactment of such revenue bills is nondelegable. (I realize that the IRS currently does not exercise such legislative power.)

Congress has the authority pursuant to Article I, § 8 "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".

Congress further has the Article I, § 8 authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So the answer to your question, "Is there anything here that violates separation of powers?" is a qualified no.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no such thing as separation of powers by itself. You need some text to hang it on.

I'd read this through the Necessary and Proper Clause; is a 20 year term necessary to effectuate the purpose of the agency?

[Bob from Ohio]

"You need some text to hang it on."

Try the first sentence of the first three Articles of the Constitution

[Sarcastr0]

Now that's some ambiguity you can hang your hat on!

Anyone who claims the terms 'legislative Powers' 'The executive Power' and 'The judicial Power' dictates an answer to the above hypothetical is just doing an "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be."

[Bob from Ohio]

Classic goalpost moving, you said "You need some text to hang it on."

I provided "some text", now its just "ambiguity".

[Michael P]

Yes: the law would appropriate power from the presidency, most notably that to supervise the performance of executive duties under the Take Care Clause. The unqualified non-removal bit goes far beyond anything that any Supreme Court has upheld.

[Sarcastr0]

Unitary executive shit.

We are not a monarchy with 4-term elected monarch.
The right claims this nonsense in the name of separation of powers, original Constitutional meaning, and small government, which just shows they'll believe anything they are told.

Supervision and leadership do not per se require being able to fire everyone at will.

[loki13]

It's a failure of small-c conservatism. Remember the old saw about if you find a structure in the forest and you don't know why it's there, you don't tear it down ... at least until you understand why it was put there?

The unitary executive theory suffers from three flaws.

First, it's not some age-old theory. It's a crockpot theory, born from the late '70s (too much pot?), that was most notable for being a dissent in 1988 and was simply a reflection of a partisan belief in the GOP in the '80s when they thought that they had a sure path to the executive, but could never truly get Congress (things change). The power of the theory, as anyone will tell you, is exactly matched by the identity of the party in control of the Executive.

Second, it's not originalist. There's tons of articles on this. But in essence, it's some people who took one bit of one part of clause (the "take care" clause) and read it to mean EVERYTHING, then read out the rest of the Constitution. For example, in the rest of the Constitution, enumerated powers are enumerated, and you can't go beyond them. But in Article I, the presence of anything (like having Cabinet members submit a written report on an annual basis) is meaningless, because the take care clause means unlimited unenumerated power due to the unitary executive.

Third, it ignores history. As the requirements of the Federal Government grew, so too did the need for legal oversight- which was provided by law (through Congress) and oversight. As corruption increased due to the old Jacksonian model (which was patronage, and NOT originalist), the concept of civil service reform and meritocracy bloomed and was enshrined, BY CONGRESS, into law. The reason it evolved the way it did was not just because it was Constitutional, not just because it was Congress making the laws, but also because it worked.

But hey, we know it works in practice, why not destroy it in a revolutionary fervor to try out our theory? I mean ... it's not like we can't already see exactly what will happen, because we see it now. You end up with corruption, inefficiency, and unaccountability.

[Mr. Bumble]

" But in essence, it's some people who took one bit of one part of clause (the "take care" clause) and read it to mean EVERYTHING, ..."
You mean like the "general welfare" has come to mean EVERYTHING?
Manybe get back to federalism and have the federal government just do the basic things it was designed to do.

[Malika la Maize]

Whataboutism!

[Mr. Bumble]

What isn't "whataboutism" in your world?

[Malika la Maize]

This is clearly whataboutism.

Do you think the take care clause is being read too broadly or not? Saying “whatabout the general welfare clause” is….whataboutism.

[Sarcastr0]

Well laid out.

I've by now accepted that the Supreme Court is going to do at least an 80% unitary executive decision. They may cut out the Fed even if to do that they'd truly have to go fully Calvinball Court.

I'm thinking about the transition here. We have an administrative state built on the assumption that the law would be as it was. Now that baseline assumption is going to be cracked. Like Chadha on steroids. Except now with a paralyzed Congress unable and unwilling to do anything big, much less remake our administrative state to take into account this new paradigm.

There's a big cohort here that seeks to never understand institutions they've decided to destroy. They will cheer from their comfy generally retired and insulated houses.

To the rest of us in the real world, the civic chaos is something I don't think we're prepared for.

[Bob from Ohio]

Bureaucrat doesn't like check on the bureaucracy. Shocking.

[Sarcastr0]

Know-nothing has worked hard to not understand thing one about the administrative state he wants to wreck.

[Bob from Ohio]

I understand that an independent "administrative state" is not in the Constitution.

[Bwaaah]

Legal theories won't save you from the fact that by shear scale and reach into the affairs of people, government has lost a comprehensible thread atop which people can sustain trust.

The geniuses (like you) are in charge (as they always were), but now expecting normal people to trust bureaucracies of genius-level complexity, and laws of innumerable effect.

Good luck selling a theory that anything like the status quo is sustainable. Our collective endeavors through government were always a confidence game. Unless you've got some rabbit in your hat, it looks like you'll be needing to succeed without the confidence of the people.

Rational threads are slipping away.

[Malika la Maize]

This shear scale is a recent breach into the affairs of the people?

Were adultery, fornication, cohabitation, obscenity, contraception, etc., laws a big intrusion on the affairs of the people?

[Bwaaah]

No. Not a recent breach. A slow, steadily rising level of scale and complexity that feels like a breach to the majority of people. Maybe you don't see the broader dimensions of that as a slippery slope? Does it all amount to no more than an onward march of increasing justice, simply on the basis of that being what is intended?

I'm not one who needs to be convinced of the merits of government. It's my normal friends you need to convince.

[Sarcastr0]

The solution to your position that government is too big is NOT to put all that too big power into the hands of one person.

That's pants-on-head crazy.

It is also where the right is these days.

[Bwaaah]

And you argue here, as typical, against Trump and the right and positions I do not support.

You're answering to Them, not me.

I wonder if you'll ever recognize me as anything like I actually am.

[Malika la Maize]

I would think take care just mean “faithfully carry out the instructions and intent of the Congress.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Like enforcing immigration laws and deporting those who violated them?

[Malika la Maize]

Yes.

“Having said that, count me as one of the persons who thinks immigration laws have to be enforced. It’s nothing to cheer about, it’s sad, but it’s necessary.”

See how non-whataboutism works?

[David Nieporent]

Even if one agrees with that, it's perfectly legitimate, of course, to criticize how they're being enforced. Nothing says that the government is required to act as cruelly and arbitrarily and racistly as possible.

[Brett Bellmore]

It certainly is, and I've been saying this a lot lately: While Trump is generally (But not exclusively!) pursuing ends I approve of, he tends to pursue them in the stupidest, most obnoxious way possible.

[Bob from Ohio]

The constitutional basis of "unitary executive" is "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. ", not the"take care" clause.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Your definition of executive seems to have a lot more to it than mine does, or that the Supreme Court of Humphrey's does, if you think that word is all you need.

2. "All legislative power" goes to Congress but there is no all in the executive power going to the President.
So there's a limit in the executive power going to the President built into the text, at least as compared to Congress.

Didn't you go to law school? Was textualism not part of your Con Law class?

[Bob from Ohio]

"All legislative Powers herein granted", telling you left off the "herein granted" limitation.

Arguably, the grant to the President is broader. He gets all executive power, no matter its source, as Curtiss Wright recognized.

You have no problem reading the "judicial power" broadly, allowing for judicial review of acts of congress. But the executive power is just clerical.

[David Nieporent]

The problem with the whole Vesting Clause argument is that it generally begs the question. Okay, so maybe executive power (not "all executive power") is vested in the president. But that's only the first step in the analysis. One also has to show that the particular power we're talking about exists and that it is part of "executive power."

For example, let's talk about the power to fire agency heads. Even if you assume that to the extent it exists, it most naturally would be deemed an executive function, you still need to establish that it does exist. If Congress legislates an office into existence and says that such an officer can only be fired for cause, then there is no general power to fire him. It simply doesn't exist. So the president can't have it. Yes, the president can still fire the guy for cause, but not just because he wants to.

There is nothing in the text of Article II that rules that out.

Article II does not define the general executive power — it specifies a few narrow things like vetos/pardons/etc. — so we need to look to the statutes enacted by Congress to see what it includes.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yawn, the President as mere clerk argument.

[David Nieporent]

And? You'll notice his constitutional duty — not just a power, but his obligation — is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That's in the constitution. The power to decide government policy, on the other hand, is not mentioned.

[Bob from Ohio]

Only laws that comply with the Constitution.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, but that's circular and irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that the president's job is carry out the laws, which makes him (mostly) a "mere clerk." There is nothing at all in the constitution that says that a president can fire anyone without cause, so it isn't unconstitutional to create an office that can only be fired for cause.

[Kazinski]

You don't even know what Humphreys says.

It is explicitly limited to Quasi-legislative or Quasi-judicial agencies.

"The Myers case dealt with the removal of a postmaster, an executive officer restricted to executive functions and charged with no duty at all related to either the legislative or the judicial power. The actual decision in the Myers case finds support in the theory that such an officer is merely one of the units in the executive department, and, hence, inherently subject to the exclusive and illimitable power of removal by the Chief Executive, whose subordinate he is. That decision goes no farther than to include purely executive officers. The Federal Trade Commission, in contrast, is an administrative body created by Congress to carry into effect legislative policies embodied in the statute in accordance with the legislative standard therein prescribed, and to perform other specified duties as a legislative or as a judicial aid. Such a body cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or an eye of the executive. Its duties are performed without executive leave, and, in the contemplation of the statute, must be free from executive control."

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe you need to look at cases that cite Humphrey’s and what they cite it for.
You know, how lawyers actually deal with precedent.

Not cargo culting the bare text you don’t have the background to understand.
This history of quasi judicial and quasi legislative is weird but cases passed when we were into that stuff didn’t all get narrowed to their facts.

[Kazinski]

So what decision expanded it?

I'll tell you the decision that put it on life support:

"Our precedents have recognized only two exceptions to the President’s unrestricted removal power. In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), we held that Congress could create expert agencies led by a group of principal officers removable by the President only for good cause. And in United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483 (1886), and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), we held that Congress could provide tenure protections to certain inferior officers with narrowly defined duties.
We are now asked to extend these precedents to a new configuration: an independent agency that wields significant executive power and is run by a single individual who cannot be removed by the President unless certain statutory criteria are met. We decline to take that step. "

- Seila Law

[ducksalad]

Which executive power covers firing people:

Is firing someone appointing them with the consent of the Senate?
Is firing someone a veto?
Is firing someone a pardon?
Is firing someone (not in the military) being commander in chief?
Is firing someone receiving a foreign ambassador?
Is firing someone requiring a chief officer's opinion in writing?

It sure as hell isn't taking care to faithfully executing the law, since the whole FTC thing is him arguing he doesn't have to follow a law passed by Congress. Which is why suddenly MAGA-law is saying it's not about "take care", it looks awful stupid to say I have to violate the law to faithfully execute it.

The "take care" clause is still there whether you like it or not, and it is relevant because it requires the president to follow the law. FTC and every single restriction Congress put on it are parts of the law.

The claim that the FTC law in unconstitutional has to explain which
executive power is being violated. The vesting clause just says he has executive power, not what the executive power is.

[Bob from Ohio]

Those 6 things are not the limit of Executive Power.

You know the next Democrat elected president will benefit by slaughtering Humphrey's Executive?

[David Nieporent]

You know the next Democrat elected president will benefit by slaughtering Humphrey's Executive?

It is very telling that you think this is a compelling argument.

[ducksalad]

Yup.

[Bob from Ohio]

Most libs here are super mad because Trump!. But the anticipated upcoming decision will benefit all future presidents. It will make it easier to reverse Trump! stuff and get rid of Trump! appointees.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a benefit, if you care about the republic and not how many units of power your side gets next.

[Bob from Ohio]

" care about the republic"

The republic is cared for when un-constitutional "independent" agencies are put under control of the elected executive.

Next, revive the non-delegation doctrine and strip these things of much of their power. The Major Questions doctrine is a good start. Gorsuch's dissent in Gundy v. United States is better.

Congress will be forced to legislate. The Republic will be partly restored.

[ducksalad]

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, you pivoted away from your 'why are Dems mad this will benefit a Dem President one day.'

Are you ashamed, or just don't own your opinions enough to care to stick with them?

Stay on topic. I'm not going to go into your shit legal takes. Lets stick with your utter lack of morals when it comes to the use of power.
You don't even consider that other people might have principles, and thus not align with your unprincipled weirdo act.

[ducksalad]

Those 6 things are not the limit of Executive Power.

True. The president also has whatever power Congress has delegated. For example, to fire FTC commissioners for cause.

If I recall correctly, back during Biden's student loan power grab, you understood that the president doesn't have all powers that aren't forbidden. Only what is granted.

Please answer the question: Which executive power do you claim is being violated, and where in the constitution is it defined as being one of the executive powers?

You know the next Democrat elected president will benefit by slaughtering Humphrey's Executive?

Yes, and that makes it worse. After years here you still don't get it.

[Kazinski]

Thanks for the explanation.

Its helpful to know you don't even understand the premise of the case.

The deciding factor, even in Humphreys, wasn't whether firing someone was an executive act, it was whether the function of the agency was executive in nature, and thus must be under the chief executive's control, including firing its Officers.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re coming in a bit hot, eh?

[ducksalad]

I'm aware they framed it that way.

What I disagree with is "and thus". Why "and thus"?

Would you agree with any of the following:

"and thus must be under the chief executive's control, including determining its budget."
"and thus must be under the chief executive's control, including deciding its staffing level."
"and thus must be under the chief executive's control, including deciding whether they work on trade or patching potholes."

I hope you're not that far gone. So obviously it doesn't follow that the president has exclusive control over executive agencies. Congress can regulate all kinds of stuff. What is the case that firing is more or less "executive" than budget, staffing, or type of work?

[Kazinski]

While I am quoting Seila Law, this is the best part:

"Under our Constitution, the “executive Power”—all of it—is “vested in a President,”"

[Michael P]

Typical Gaslight0 conclusory ipse dixit bullshit with a strong dose of strawman.

[Sarcastr0]

What unsupported assertions did I make that you take issue with, Michael?

Was it 'We are not a monarchy with 4-term elected monarch?'
Was it 'Supervision and leadership do not per se require being able to fire everyone at will?'

[Michael P]

What about Humphrey's Executor do you think represents "unitary executive shit" or a "4-term elected monarch"? Why don't you finish your argument instead of yelling at clouds? I very explicitly didn't say that the president needed to be able to fire anyone at any time or on a whim. I said the hypothetical law would go "far beyond anything that any Supreme Court has upheld".

Maybe the Take Care Clause or the vesting of executive power in the presidency implies that the president should be able to fire people without cause, and maybe not, but they certainly imply that he should have some oversight of executive officers.

[MollyGodiva]

"Separation of Powers" is not found in the Constitution, and if you actually read the Constitution you would find that the concept is not in there. Powers are commonly shared between branches.

If this new agency does not trespass on any of the enumerated powers of the President it should be Constitutional.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Separation of Powers" is not found in the Constitution, and if you actually read the Constitution you would find that the concept is not in there."

"Separation of Powers" is found in first sentence of each Article of the Constitution

[Brett Bellmore]

But it doesn't use that specific phrase, so the fact that it explicitly gives separate branches different powers doesn't count.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yup, that's the lib argument.

[apedad]

Sounds like you're rejecting Textualism, OK.

Which method should we instead be using?

Actual Originalism
Common Good Constitutionalism
Empirical Textualism
Fair-weather Originalism
Framework Originalism
Halfway Originalism
History & Tradition with a special focus on “analogous regulation”
Intrinsicist Originalism
Instrumental Originalism
Liquidated Originalism
Lower-court originalism.
Original Intent
Original Law
Original Meaning
Original Methods Originalism
Original Public Meaning
Process-Formalist Originalism
Semantic Originalism
Structuralism

[Bob from Ohio]

"rejecting Textualism,"

Not at all. The text allocates legislative power to one branch executive power to another, and judicial power to a third. The power is separated.

[apedad]

Actually there's overlap in several areas.

For example, under Art. 2:

- (President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate . . . .
- (President) may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them . . . .
- Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone . . . .
- Impeachment

[David Nieporent]

Contrary to the "separation of powers" fanatics who base their conclusion on skimpy language, almost all — not all, but almost all — powers in the constitution are explicitly shared among branches. For instance, the president plays a role in legislating via the veto. Congress plays roles in foreign policy by, inter alia, (a) having the power to declare war; (b) the power to ratify/reject treaties; (c) make rules for the governance and regulation of the military; (d) to pass laws relating to piracy and international law; and (e) regulate foreign commerce.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I've remarked before, outside of pathological circumstances, all real forms of originalism tend to converge on roughly the same result.

Authors embody their original intent in text, which will be understood by contemporary readers. Generally, language WORKS, if you let it. Big if, of course.

Now, some of those you name are not real forms of originalism, they are ways originalists give up on originalism and embrace living constitutionalism without admitting it to themselves. Fair weather, liquidated, these are expressly ways of giving up on originalism.

[not guilty]

Brett, do you regard Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), wherein SCOTUS ruled that racial segregation of public schools in the District of Columbia violates the Fifth Amendment, as being wrongly decided?

Why or why not?

[not guilty]

The Constitution assigns different responsibilities to the different branches of government, but the drafters explicitly wrote the preeminence of the Congress into the final paragraph of Article I, § 8, which gives Congress the authority:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. [Emphasis added.]

[Kazinski]

The necessary and proper cause doesn't mean dismantling the rest of the constitution is proper, however necessary you think it is.

[ducksalad]

Some us still think that when the text conflicts with some claim of implied power, the text should win.

What NG posted is written in the Constitution. The "absolute firing power" is implied, to the extent it exists at all.

[Kazinski]

So if Congress decided its too hard to exercise free speech with so many voices and platforms it is necessary and proper to license X and FB users, and regulate their posts, then that's it? They're good?

Seems improper to me, even if they think its necessary.

[ducksalad]

How does that follow? Allow me to repeat my former exemplar of clarity:

Some us still think that when the text conflicts with some claim of implied power, the text should win.

"Freedom of speech" is in the text, it is not implied. Did you not know that, Kaz?

"Unquestioned right to fire" is NOT in the text. It is merely implied, at best. Perhaps you were fooled by some comments here, go read it for yourself.

That is the difference that makes your response.....non-responsive. At best, at worst a strawman.

[Michael P]

That's not "preeminence", that's the power to enable the other eminences within their respective domains.

[Kazinski]

They ran quite a few hypotheticals by the attorneys in oral arguments.

One was could Congress create a multi-member board with staggered terms to run the State Department, or Department of defense?

Even the plaintiff said the President constitutionally has the power to fire any official that is involved in exe using the Presidents core powers.

In fact he seemed to say that an agency would have to be a blend of executive and legislative and judicial powers to make a for cause requirement constitutional.

But there was pushback both by Sauer, the SG, and some justices whether legislative delegation was permissible, but Article 2 courts seemed to pass muster.

So that would be a hard no on making collecting taxes an independent agency because that is a core executive function.

[Armchair]

You would think so. And I'd agree. But, seems many here think differently.

[Armchair]

Looks like Maryland Governor Wes Moore, an hopeful for the Democratic Nomination for President in 2028 is running it to a bit of an issue.

Seems he's been making up little details in his resume.

Moore claimed on his 2006 White House fellowship application, for example, to have been inducted into the Maryland College Football Hall of Fame, an organization that doesn't exist; that he received a Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan, which he had not; and that he was born in Baltimore, which he was not.

And now, his supposed thesis he wrote...just can't be found. Not by him, and not by the library at Oxford where it was supposed to be submitted.

I suppose that's one way to avoid plagarism.

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/wes-moore-won-a-key-white-house-post-claiming-he-was-touted-as-a-foremost-expert-on-radical-islam-and-was-studying-for-an-oxford-phd-but-his-thesis-is-missing-and-theres-no-evidence/

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/wes-moore-won-a-key-white-house-post-claiming-he-was-touted-as-a-foremost-expert-on-radical-islam-and-was-studying-for-an-oxford-phd-but-his-thesis-is-missing-and-theres-no-evidence/

[Malika la Maize]

He didn’t win the Michigan Man of the Year award?

[Magister]

Yeah, that was my first thought.

[Swede425]

The guy was married by an Elvis impersonator.
I'm willing to be forgiving on the other things because of that.

[hobie]

Karoline Leavitt must have wrote his resume

[ThePublius]

There's this thing in English called the past participle.... 🙂

[hobie]

Dern them past participles

[@LuthmannNews]

Is Chaplinsky still good law?:
https://rumble.com/v72ubiy-flashpoint-in-connecticut-paul-boynes-free-speech-showdown.html?start=3895

[SRG2]

Coincidence, I'm sure:

US prosecutors seek to abandon soccer TV rights corruption case

Trump sure loves to release corruptos, even better when he gets something in return.

[Krayt]

Sad. Official soccer organization corruption is a great example of people going into power for the purpose of being corrupt.

[Malika la Maize]

The Wolverines fired their head football coach Wednesday afternoon. The school fired Moore for cause due to an investigation of Moore, saying Wednesday the coach "engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a staff member." Further specifics of that relationship, or when the investigation actually started, are unknown...

Moore, according to ESPN's Dan Wetzel, was then detained by police in Saline, Michigan — which sits just south of Ann Arbor — on Wednesday night. He was turned over to police in Pittsfield Township for an investigation into potential charges.

Moore was eventually taken into custody at the Washtenaw County Jail. Officials said that was done after an alleged assault investigation that took place earlier on Wednesday afternoon, and that the incident "does not appear to be random in nature." Further specifics about the incident, or any charges that Moore may be facing, are not yet known.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/breaking-news/article/ex-michigan-coach-sherrone-moore-in-custody-amid-assault-investigation-after-being-fired-for-inappropriate-relationship-214028671.html

[loki13]

...wow. While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, gotta say that there is some STUNNING temporal proximity involved there.

[Malika la Maize]

Given they lost to Ohio U this year he should get a change of venue…

[Kazinski]

Pretty obvious what happened, they fired him and then he punched somebody.

Or something similar.

[Kazinski]

Oh wait there is a worse scenario he beat up his personal.assistant GF, then she told the school.

I hope not.

[Krayt]

Moore, according to ESPN's Dan Wetzel, was then detained by police in Saline, Michigan — which sits just south of Ann Arbor — on Wednesday night. He was turned over to police in Pittsfield Township for an investigation into potential charges.

I used to live out thataway. There was a minor incident one day, but in a separate incident, the state had chased someone halfway across the state and they happened to crash there, so the Pittsfield police, which was one woman, was gonna be busy with paperwork on it all night.

[loki13]

For your reading pleasure, an entertaining Order that came out today that is HALLIGAN!-related. But really, it just shows exactly how far the DOJ has fallen.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71982634/16/richman-v-united-states/

Footnote 1 is ... chef's kiss.

(This is in the Richman litigation, btw)

[Sarcastr0]

"fn1: The document that the Court is construing as a proposed Notice of Appearance for Attorney Halligan was attached with the filename "NOA Halligan," but the substance of the document appeared to be a Notice of Appearance for Attorney Blanche. Another document attached to Attorney McBride's email, entitled "NOA Blanche" was identical to this document except that it omitted Attorney Blanche's Bar number."

And the text:
"As a general matter, providing documents by email is not a substitute for filing them on the docket, and doing so does not make them part of the official record of the case. To date, the
Government's certification of compliance with this Court's Order has not been filed on the docket, and Attorneys Blanche, Halligan, and McBride have not yet formally entered their appearances."

The top cohort of US professional litigators...well I hope they all found good landing jobs.

[Bwaaah]

Do not attribute to incompetence that which, by repeated refusal to simply bow out, rises to obvious malice.

[loki13]

"Do not attribute to incompetence that which, by repeated refusal to simply bow out, rises to obvious malice."

Why not both?

[Bwaaah]

Fair enough. Obviously both.

[loki13]

The real issue is that the malice and incompetence at the DOJ are inextricably intertwined.

Trump's demands for vengeance and, um ... people who will lie to courts for him ... mean that the DOJ has been purged of most of the good attorneys. They either resign when they refuse to do something unethical (bring meritless cases, bring meritless investigation, refuse to lie to Courts) or they have been purged.

Which means that you have a whole bunch of people that are coming in that have been selected for one quality- loyalty (or lack of ethics), and not competence.

Way back in August (AUGUST!) I recounted an exchange involving some legal types, and Jack Goldsmith was there. Goldsmith is... the opposite of an alarmist. And I can't think of anyone who has a better holistic grasp on the DOJ.

If anyone would push back on the narrative that the DOJ was in trouble, it would be him. And ... he did, kinda. In the sense that he said (and I agree) that the SG's office isn't too bad, because they've convinced Trump that they have to work with SCOTUS.

But other than that? In AUGUST (this is pre-Halligan, mind you) he said that it was like a nuclear bomb had been set off at the DOJ; it was completely destroyed in terms of both personnel and independent judgment.

Again, this is someone not given to hyperbole at all. The thing is- he's right. And you can see this play out, repeatedly, in the courts across America. The DOJ is fundamentally broken.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And this is a bad thing? Read Silverglate's 3 Felonies a Day.

[David Nieporent]

Which means that you have a whole bunch of people that are coming in that have been selected for one quality- loyalty (or lack of ethics), and not competence.

Your parenthetical is better; "loyalty" isn't the right word. Trump doesn't value it; it implies a mutual set of obligations, even between a superior and subordinate. Trump has no use for that. Example A: Jeff Sessions. Example B: Mike Pence. Sycophancy is a better term. That's what Trump's looking for in this administration: the unquestioning willingness to do anything Trump wants, regardless of morality or law.

[loki13]

...fair. No notes.

[Ridgeway]

Unrelated to the substance here, what's up with referring to lawyers as "Attorney So-and-so" rather than "Mr. or Ms. So-and-so"?

I associate that with lower-end law firms (especially out West) where they think that "title" impresses the clients.

Is this something new in Federal practice (or in general) or have I just been blithely ignorant?

[loki13]

I was wondering if someone with actual legal knowledge (not just opinions, or fanciful hypotheticals, or the ability to use google or AI without any understanding of the issues) had some background on one part of the Oil Tanker story that I am still a little confused about.

Pam Bondi posted the following:
"Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran."

Now, taking all of this at face value (which ... yeah, you know ... they lie, they lie, they lie) ... I am curious about the "seizure warrant," aspect of this.

Assuming that this accurate, and that there was a duly authorized warrant ... and it was a seizure warrant (was it an evidentiary seizure warrant or a civil one?) ... how does this normally happen in cases of international waters?

...I feel like this requires that attorney from Arrested Development. I need a specialist in ADMIRALTY LAW.

Now, I did a little research of my own, and found the following helpful article! Why is it helpful...... because it not only discussed the specific issue of the seizure of boats under US law, it not only discusses it in the context of Venezuela and Iran (oil) ...

But it's from 2021, so it predates any possible "this is ginned up for the present moment."

It's an interesting read, and I'll have to think about it. Anyway, have at it!

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/legality-and-policy-ramifications-high-seas-seizures-foreign-merchant-vessels-violating-us-sanctions#:~:text=Presuming%20the%20U.S.%20has%20jurisdiction,statutory%20bases%20for%20the%20seizure.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, after your research, what's your take?

[hobie]

Yes, like Bumble, I didn't read it. Gives us the cliff notes version!

[loki13]

I'd prefer people to read it themselves without my gloss. It's full of the law-stuff, but pretty short and (IMO, but I like law-stuff) pretty readable.

In particular, the analysis of US law and jurisdiction (in rem admiralty jurisdiction) is interesting. Assuming, arguendo, that the tanker is carrying sanctioned oil, there is a jurisdictional hook and precedent (albeit the other way, from Iran to Venezuela) and slightly different facts (third parties involved).

There are international law issues as well. Again, recommend the article as a starting place for intelligent discourse.

HA HA who am I fooling. I expect people to argue what they already want to be true, regardless of the law or the facts.

[Ridgeway]

Cute story.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about the Russian yachts that were seized? The only difference with seizing it in a port is needing the permission of the state whose port it is.

[hobie]

Biden seized the yachts. Obama didn't do shit when Russia invaded Crimea. And Trump can't seem to stop fellating Putin.

Only Biden stood up to the Ruskies.

[hobie]

Dear AI, what happens now to the seized oil tanker?

"Now that the U.S. has seized the sanctioned oil tanker Skipper off Venezuela's coast, the immediate next steps involve the U.S. government taking custody of the vessel and its valuable cargo of crude oil, which President Trump stated the U.S. plans to "keep," leading to accusations of piracy from Venezuela as the situation escalates into a major diplomatic and legal confrontation over energy resources."

[Kazinski]

I'm sure they will make sure the money gets to its rightful owners.

Oct. 20, 2025

Judge Enters $2.86 Billion Judgment Against Venezuela Oil Company, Delays Decision on Attorney Fees

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2025/10/20/judge-enters-286-billion-judgment-against-venezuela-oil-company-delays-decision-on-attorney-fees/

[Kazinski]

Does it change the calculus at all that this is as much a move against Putin as it is Maduro?

After all the coast of Venezuela is not the only place in the world to seize a dark fleet tanker full of sanctioned oil.

A couple of more and carrying rates will skyrocket, the tankers won't be able to get insurance and the global trade in sanctioned oil will collapse.

Is it unrelated to the Ukrainian dark fleet tanker hit in the Black Sea earlier this week?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/10/europe/ukraine-strikes-russian-shadow-fleet-tanker-intl

Twice is coincidence, third time....

[loki13]

Not mine, but I saw this and had to share it...

https://daringfireball.net/misc/2025/12/far-side-a-few-things-around-here-color.jpeg

...Trump's thought process when he was putting up all the gold-plated gawd-awful signage in the White House.

...oh. Oh, I get it now. I mean ... we've all been watching Trump, amirite? That's why he's been putting those signs up everywhere. So during those bouts of confusion, he can look around and at some point he'll see the sign and be able to say, "Oh, I'm in the Oval Office, that's right."

[hobie]

https://theonion.com/white-house-begins-christmas-season-with-ceremonial-lig-1820917284/

[loki13]

"You're the racist for thinking that Trump putting the Christ in Christmas is bad! Also, I approve of Trump updating the White House with all those symbols that I think are honoring the Navajo."
-The Rubes

I did love that. But I still wish we lived back in the days when The Onion was known for this article...

https://theonion.com/national-funk-congress-deadlocked-on-get-up-get-down-is-1819565355/

*sigh* MAKE AMERICA BORING AGAIN!

[hobie]

Kills TikTok ban
Sells America's chip tech
ChiComs own significant $TRUMP stake
Pardon's ChiCom crypto-bro fraudster

Seems suspicious

[apedad]

Suspicious?!?

That's exactly how I suspected things would go.

[loki13]

Why source documents and how facts should change minds-

https://daringfireball.net/misc/2025/12/state-department-return-to-tradition.text

That's the actual memo from Sec. Rubio about the change back to Times New Roman from Calibri. I recommend reading it in full (I apologize for the fact that it is plain text, but that's the source that I found).

When I first heard the reports of the change, I had the following thoughts-

1. I didn't know that the State Department had changed to Calibri before.
2. Seriously, Calibri? I hate that font. Times New Roman isn't great, but it's so much better than Calibri.
3. But WTF does any of this have to do with "WOKE" or "DEI"? Gawd, Rubio is such a tool.

That was pretty much it. Now I've read the actual memo.

Honestly? The memo is correct, IMO. I've seen better (much better) but I generally agree with it. Okay, it does have one (ONE!) sentence that really shouldn't be in a government document. You'll know it when you see it, and it's under (10.). At this point, I think that all government agents have a macro to insert that into all official documents (it's probably a button that looks like Trump's butt ... so in size, it's probably the space bar). But other than the apparently required and nonsensical sentence (which was the only thing reported!) it's correct.

So while I still think Rubio is a tool (you have to be to serve in this administration), this is yet another example of needing to see source documents.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You gotta admit that you know where you stand with these people.

[Bored Lawyer]

First sentence in Point 10:

But in 2023 the Department picked Calibri, a sans serif font, because it “was recommended as an accessibility best practice by the Secretary’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.”

So it was DEI that made the ridiculous claim that switching to Calibri would be more inclusive. So I see nothing wrong with pushing back on that.

Perhaps some DEI defenders here can explain, with a straight face, how switching from one font to another is more inclusive. It sounds like satire to me.

[Magister]

The statement was about accessibility, not inclusion; sans serif fonts are generally considered to be more accessible for various impairments. (Making things more accessible does probably improve inclusion, though.)

[Voize of Reazon]

Calibri was designed in 2007 to be more readable on a computer screen and more compatible with OCR technology than other available typefaces, especially serif ones. Inclusion isn't just about trannies and the gayz, it applies to the visually impaired too.
Switching back to get a "more formal" look, by which the administration seems to mean more imperial-looking, prioritizes form over function. I guess we should be glad they didn't choose Fraktur.

[loki13]

I'm going to disagree with that, in part.

Assuming that the statistics are correct (always a big leap, since the easiest way to tell that this administration is lying is that they are saying something), then remediation efforts did not decrease after the shift.

That means that moving to Calibri had no effect on accessibility. Which tracks IME.

I agree with you on the purpose of the design of Calibri.
But ... it doesn't help with dyslexia (there are specialty fonts that do make a measurable difference). And at 14pt, there shouldn't be any meaningful impact on accessibility- and there wasn't.

I am all in favor of increasing accessibility, and while you're welcome to disagree with me, this (switching from TNR to Calibri) is the exact sort of thing that I genuinely dislike- something that you announce in order to feel good that makes no meaningful difference.

Admittedly, I hate the font, so there's that.

[Voize of Reazon]

Perhaps, but I can believe it wasn't successful at improving accessibility without going full Brett-cynic and concluding it was all just woke feelz. Some failures are simply failures.

Microsoft had switched the default font in Office from TNR to Calibri with readability as one of the reasons. Maybe the thinking (16 years later!) was "they must have known what they were doing, why don't we do the same?" A perfectly well-intentioned decision with no Soros involvement whatsoever!

[loki13]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think that the added sentence in the actual document is BS and not needed.

I also don't generally disagree with the impetus, and don't doubt that it was well-intentioned and genuinely meant to increase access (which, um, is neither "WOKE" nor DEI, but whatever- those are just meaningless insults used along with "But Biden").

Just saying that on the merits, I agree with switching it back.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OCR to speech generation for the blind -- 30 years ago the machine worked better with the san serif fonts. Of course electronic copy works even better.

San serif is considered preferable for screens, serif for paper, don't ask me why.

[ducksalad]

Hey, what's your complaint? They said "illegal, immoral, radical, *or* wasteful". Nowhere do they claim that Calibri is all four, just that it's at least one of them, unspecifed.

[loki13]

Abrego Garcia to be immediately released:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589189/gov.uscourts.mdd.589189.110.0_2.pdf

In other news, I am following the docket in Tennessee, and it's getting weird. The Judge there just ordered the DOJ to turn over documents to the defense that it had been fighting to not turn over, and for both sides to provide arguments as to why the prior Order the judge issued (and sealed) should not be unsealed.

By the way, this is the case where, whenever I point out the sheer number of lies (and the audacity of the lies) of the DOJ, we have the usual suspects come in to ... repeat the lies that the DOJ has told that have been debunked in Court.

Remember- they lie, they lie, they lie. They lie to us. They lie to the courts. They provide sworn declarations full of lies. They will claim privileges and confidentiality and file sealed documents to prevent people from finding out that they lied. And they will engage in any and all dilatory tactics to keep their lies from being uncovered for as long as possible- and when their lies are found out, will claim that the Court shouldn't believe their past lies, but should believe their new lies. Don't believe their lies.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"This time, when the Court sought information about Liberia and Costa Rica so to fairly assess the validity of Abrego Garcia’s claims, Respondents did not just stonewall. They affirmatively misled the tribunal."

[loki13]

Having followed the litigation, what's surprising isn't that the judge calling out the government for repeatedly lying (using a variety of euphemisms before arriving at "affirmatively misled) ...

It's that if you're familiar with the case, the Judge is actually soft-selling the DOJ's conduct in the action.

In effect, the procedural history is:
The DOJ lied. Then they lied. Then I ordered them to provide a witness, and the witness either didn't know anything, or they lied. Then they lied and filed it under seal in the hope that no one would know that they lied. And they produced a witness who signed under oath a document who admitted that they didn't know anything about the lies in the document. And then they lied again. Etc.

And somehow, the actual full facts are even worse. That's our DOJ!

(I would note that in the Boasberg contempt hearings, they are attempting to appeal and stall again in order to avoid admitting to more lies. Because they've already lied about their lies, and they don't want to have anyone testify to lie about their lies about their lies.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

At this point, "soft selling" is ridiculous.

But it still occurs. And not just in court.

I'm not sure if anyone flagged this, but Judge (sigh) Bove going to a Trump rally is not a great look.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/181263675

[SRG2]

Judge (sigh) Bove going to a Trump rally is not a great look.

Or, in Joshland, he's showing great courage

[David Nieporent]

(I would note that in the Boasberg contempt hearings, they are attempting to appeal and stall again in order to avoid admitting to more lies. Because they've already lied about their lies, and they don't want to have anyone testify to lie about their lies about their lies.)

"Noem isn't guilty of contempt because she followed the advice of counsel, but we refuse to tell you what that advice was."

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure it's not a Pyrrhic victory; I would not be shocked to hear tomorrow that ICE has snatched him up and sent him to Iran or something, and then filed something with the court saying, "Oh yeah? What are you gonna do about it?"

[loki13]

The truly crazy thing about all of this (I mean, crazy as defined as "in a period of time that isn't part of this administration) ...

None of it is necessary. From the beginning- Abrego was deported due to a mistake (a violation of a court order) that the DOJ acknowledged at the beginning. In other words, every ... single ... thing ... was predicated on an initial unlawful action that the DOJ admitted that they weren't allowed to do!

And because of that, Abrego was sent to a place where he was beaten and tortured.

Since then ... instead of fixing the mistake, the Administration has engaged in a full on effort of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down with transparent lies. They have lied to the public. They have supported transparent lies (Trump's defense of the MS-13 photoshop was ... I mean ...). They have lied to trial courts and appellate courts and the Supreme Court. They have lied about foreign governments REPEATEDLY.

They have made up facts, suborned perjury, and created a completely bogus criminal investigation out of whole cloth (seriously, the factual findings so far in the Tennessee case boggle the mind) and fired dedicated DOJ and ICE officers that refused to play along with the charade. They have submitted false affidavits. They have defied court orders. They have repeatedly filed documents under seal under false pretenses hoping that the lack of scrutiny of others would keep the lies hidden. They have refused to provide documents and made redactions that weren't allowed in order to avoid disclosing relevant facts.

In short, they have used both the awesome power of the federal government to prosecute a person using lies and the full bully pulpit to spread malicious false smears against a person.

Why? Just because they want to punish someone for having the temerity of being mistakenly deported and tortured because of their mistake.

This is our government now.

[David Nieporent]

You forgot "They gave legal breaks to someone who actually is confirmed to have done all the things they claim Abrego Garcia might have done, so that they could vindictively go after Abrego Garcia for making them look bad." But yeah.

And, "They pretended he was such a danger to the country that he needed to be gone immediately, but then extended his stay here by refusing to send him somewhere that was ready, willing, and able to accept him, and where he was consenting to go, because they wanted to vindictively deport him to a place where he'd suffer."

Also? You didn't use the word "lied" enough to fully capture their behavior.

[Brett Bellmore]

" From the beginning- Abrego was deported due to a mistake"

My understanding that he was deported due to having a deportation order, and that the mistake was simply WHERE he was deported to: The only country a judge had ruled he couldn't be deported to.

But, yeah, if you doubled a folded piece of paper as much as they've doubled down on that mistake, it would reach to the moon.

[loki13]

Honestly, a fair response Brett.

...except for one thing .... there was never a deportation order*. That was the reason the Court just released him.

So in addition to violating a Court order that said, "DO NOT DEPORT!!11!!!" they were also holding him this entire time based on a supposed deportation order that did not exist.

*Order of Removal.

[David Nieporent]

Right. Brett has only a general understanding of the law (which is fine; he's not a lawyer), and doesn't get the nuances. There was a finding that Abrego Garcia was removeable (along with an order withholding removal to El Salvador) which isn't the same thing as a removal order.

[Mr. Bumble]

What a fucking tangled web...

[DDHarriman]

In the opening of Garcia' complaint which brought the case into her court he conceded he's subject to an Order of Removal. Can that fact he conceded later be contested?

I don't think so.

[David Nieporent]

There are two possible documents you could be referring to.

1. The complaint which originally brought the case into this court — right after he was deported — is here. It does not even mention the words "order of removal." To be fair, it does use "removal order," but only in quoting a statute (¶ 16); it does not say one was issued to him.

2. The habeas petition which they filed after he was brought back is here. It does mention the phrase "order of removal" twice. Once is just quoting a statute (¶ 29) and the other explicitly says "purported order of removal." It does say "removal order" a few times — (¶ 19, 28, 29) — in describing the law. There's one mention in ¶ 69 which is the closest thing to what you said, though obviously ¶ 69 is not "the opening" of anything. It says:

Petitioner’s 2019 removal order was executed in March 2025. Petitioner was paroled into the United States on June 6, 2025. Respondents cannot execute a removal order a second time. Nor can Respondents reinstate Petitioner’s removal order, since he has not illegally reentered the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Accordingly, Petitioner has no executable removal order, and Respondents cannot remove Petitioner from the United States, nor may they detain Petitioner pursuant to any subsection of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a).

(Emphasis added.) There is no way that this passing reference constitutes a "concession" that he's subject to an order of removal, even if one could "concede" the existence of an order that doesn't exist; its argument is that he's not subject to an order of removal.

[DDHarriman]

He was granted a withholding of removal (only blocked El Salvador).

You cannot get a grant of withholding of removal unless you are subject to a withholding order. Right?

[David Nieporent]

Not right. The normal way to do it is to get the removal order, of course, but as Judge Xinis explained, the removal order and the withholding order are separate things.

But in any case, where is this document — this "Garcia' complaint which brought the case into her court" — that you described, in which "he conceded he's subject to an Order of Removal" in the "opening"?

[DDHarriman]

They are separate, but one is a prerequisite of the other. If the second exists, it's prerequisite must also exist.

Garcia was under a removal order. Xinis needed to erase it.

[John F. Carr]

An immigration judge rather than a judge judge. An alter ego of the Attorney General. If the Attorney General determines that a person's life or freedom will be threatened in a country (see below) the Attorney General may not remove him to that country. Both removal and withholding of removal decisions are delegated. The initial deportation was a simple statutory violation without any separation of powers implications. By now real judges are involved.

Quoting from 8 USC 1231:

the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

[SRG2]

"We never make mistakes" as the Soviets used to say,

[Josh R]

The Crapo-Cassidy alternative (tax-free government contributions to HSA accounts) to extending the ACA subsidies is being marketed as sending money to the American people instead of insurance companies. That sounds right at first blush until you realize the government contributions are conditioned on you buying health insurance.

[Ridgeway]

The effect should be that people are able to procure high-deductible plans, which should be significantly less expensive in terms of premiums than conventional PPO plans.

Then you use the HSA dollars to pay the out-of-pocket charges.

I personally am a big fan of the HD/HSA model -- it is the most straightforward of all the models I have seen, and it works the most like actual "insurance" (as opposed to prepaid medical).

The downside with the current HD/HSA iteration, is that it only works well for higher income people who can benefit from using pre-tax dollars to fund the HSA.

AIUI, the Cassidy/Crapo plan is aimed at making that structure more economically attractive to lower earners.

[Josh R]

How does the plan make HSAs more attractive to lower earners?

AIUI, the plan contributes (tax-free) $1000 or $1500 to your HSA if you buy Bronze or Catastrophic health insurance. But that could be done as a subsidy without an HSA. As you noted, the lower earner still cannot effectively contribute their own money to the HSA to pay health care expenses.

[Ridgeway]

A big piece of it is mental. The HSA is forced savings that has to be earmarked for medical expenses. But using those HSA funds to pay medical bills is less painful than using money in your regular bank account (that you were saving for that jet ski).

In addition, unused HSA dollars carry over (unlike FSA dollars), so when you are young and hopefully have low medical costs, you can build up funds for future bigger out-of-pocket events.

I'd also hope that the Cass-Crap plan encourages employers to offer HD/HSA plans, and does not just apply to non-employer health insurance. Due to the lower premiums, HD/HSA plans should be very attractive to employers that share premiums with their employees, and some of those savings could go to fund the employees' HSAs. Win-win.

[Josh R]

You think that contributing $1000/$1500 to an HSA will convince lower-income people to contribute their own money as well even though they get little or no tax benefit from doing so?

The plan does not involve employers.

[Ridgeway]

They dont need to contribute to the HSA. What I am saying is that an HD/HSA plan can make better economic sense for a lot of people (especially if either the govt or employer contributes to the HSA) than a more conventional PPO plan. This is especially true because most PPO plans with "low" deductibles still seem to have additional "coinsurance" requirements that kick in once the deductible is met.

[SimonP]

Do you believe that the availability of 401(k) accounts and IRAs has sufficiently inspired people to save enough money for their retirements - including, in particular, for increased medical expenses they might be expected to incur in those years?

(The answer is no, people have not saved enough for their expected retirements, despite these essentially being the only show in town any more.)

So the follow-up question is why your genius HD/HSA solution could be expected to work any differently. You buy an HD plan, you sock away $1000 in the HSA. Then what? You contribute a few bucks to the HSA for a few years and then get into a car accident. You wipe out your entire HSA balance on the deductible for that year. You have to scrounge for another thousand or two because you haven't been able to contribute anywhere near the maximum amount to your HSA, and you didn't expect to need to, either. Then what?

It's not a solution.

And we might as well ask why it is in this country that we can't take a problem that impacts us all and come up with a single, simple solution to it, indeed one that other developed nations have implemented more or less successfully, and instead have to pile on more paperwork onto a system that isn't functioning well. You don't like ACA subsidies, repeal ACA. Why in the hell are we talking about adding an elaborate scheme on top of an already complicated system, which was itself hoisted on an inefficient delivery network?

[Kazinski]

Why would it be problematic to conditioning sending Americans money to subsidize their health insurance, for them to buy health insurance?

Next you will be saying they shouldn't have conditioned solar subsidies on buying a solar system. Or you shouldn't have to actually buy an EV to get the EV subsidy.

[Josh R]

The policy is not a problem (*). The claim in support of it (we are sending money to the people, not insurance companies) is a lie.

(*) But, the conditional payments only apply to Bronze or Catastrophic plans. Moving people into those plans will undermine guaranteed issue and community ratings.

[Kazinski]

Does the money go into their account or not?

[Josh R]

It goes into their account. So what?

A policy costs $2000, but I pay only $1000 with ACA subsidies. I also pay $1000 in healthcare expenses out of my pocket. I have paid $2000 in total.

If instead, $1000 is placed in my HSA I again spend $2000 for the same exact things. It makes no difference if use the $1000 from the government to pay for the policy or the healthcare expenses.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Brief Encounter is a classic tragic love story.

The film stars Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard in the lead roles. It skillfully tells the story mostly through the eyes of Celia Johnson.

The film has limited domestic scenes with Celia and her husband. But it mostly involves the two stars and some nice shots of trains.

There was a TV remake with Sophia Loren and Richard Burton in the 1970s. I checked it out on DVD. Ouch.

A primary problem is that the film added a bunch of very unnecessary exposition, mostly not involving the two key characters. For instance, now the woman has a part-time job, and we see her at work. What this adds to the film is unclear.

The two actors, who are, of course, remarkable actors in other roles, don't have much chemistry. They aren't even together much for the first hour of the film. Suddenly, one says that somehow they fell in love with each other. Yes. Since it's necessary for the plot.

I'm fine with remakes and tweaking material. But this was a bust, and I'm not the only one who said so.

(The original has a charming scene with the two actors going to watch a film, with multiple nice touches. For some reason, the remake has the couple go to a live performance of some play. It is yet another dubious move that adds nothing to the proceedings.)

[Bored Lawyer]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that there are more and more remakes (and sequels) than there used to be. Original creativity seems to be harder to come by.

[Ridgeway]

It feels like it, but I am not sure it is actually true. You don't realize how many "old" '40s and '50s movies were actually remakes of silent movies and 'early talkies.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Some basic storylines have been remade for a long time.

His Girl Friday, the Cary Grant film, for instance, was a remake of an earlier film. Shakespeare retold stories.

[Ridgeway]

Pshaw! Next you'll be telling me you could remake The Tempest in outer space!

[John F. Carr]

Robert Heinlein wrote in 1947: "There are three main plots for the human interest story: boy-meets girl, The Little Tailor, and the man-who-learned-better." This may have been meant as advice for science fiction writers rather than writers of general literature.

[SRG2]

IIRC the Maltese Falcon was a remake of a film made only about three years earlier.

[Ridgeway]

Ten, but who's counting. The 1931 version starred Ricardo Cortez f/k/a Jacob Krantz. I'm suspecting some of the posters here would not have been fans of either of him.

[SRG2]

Part of it is that it costs so much to make major films nowadays (for reasons which I cannot discern), and this reinforces studios' natural conservatism, so they'll remake films that succeeded the first time, when not making comic universe franchise films.

BTW my favourite remake trivia: Casablanca was remade with a different setting under what title? And who played the Bogart part in the remake?

Answer: Barb Wire, Pamela Anderson.

[Ridgeway]

An interesting thing about the old Brief Encounter is the score. While the movie is very understated, the Rachmaninoff score (Piano Concerto No. 2?) is over-the-top emotional.

P.S. this is stolen directly from the guest intro on TCM when I saw it a decade or so ago.

[SRG2]

It seems that modern pianists manage to play it without drenching it in attar of roses - I found it almost intolerable to listen to in earlier performances, but, e.g., Kissin, Trifonov and La Wang avoid that, to my far greater enjoyment.

[Kazinski]

Juliet Samuel writes in the London Times this headline:

Failing state has surrendered to mob threats

And the it starts out talking about AI hallucinations, before it gets into the meat which includes a large serving of anti-Semitism and Pre-Crime:

"It hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge, but it will. At some point, a prominent journalist will be found out using artificial intelligence to compose an article. The article may well contain a “hallucination” — Silicon Valley’s word for made-up garbage — and the journalist will be fired.

Now imagine that it wasn’t a journalist but a police intelligence officer compiling evidence to inform an official committee on a matter of public safety. Imagine the dossier contained multiple unexplained errors, including a passage flagged by AI detection tools, referring to an event that had never happened, but was used to justify a controversial act. And imagine that, when questioned, the response by the senior officer in charge was: “There are always going to be improvements that can be made in any piece of work of this scale”.

This scenario is not a hallucination. It actually happened. The officer was Mike O’Hara, assistant chief constable of West Midlands police. The decision was the one to ban all Israeli fans from attending a football match between Aston Villa and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Birmingham, in defiance of advice from Uefa and the government’s own adviser on antisemitism, Lord Mann. And the fact of this decision, made on the basis of alleged fabricated evidence, tells us something extremely disturbing about how power works in Britain."

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/cultural-sensitivity-trumps-truth-fan-ban-jj00wh3xs

[Brett Bellmore]

There are so many things telling us extremely disturbing things about Britain that you hardly have time to keep track of them. But, really, I think they all boil down to a problem that is endemic in the West: Countries whose political classes despise their own citizenry.

[Sarcastr0]

Thank goodness you're there with your telepathy to figure this whole thing out!

Surely it's nothing to do with Musk and Bannon &co. working some kind of global white nationalist push across as many European countries via social media and Musk's spending.

The attacks by the right on the UK are way out of proportion to what's actually happening in the UK. But MAGA has been well trained to bark when the right people say speak.

[DDHarriman]

It's a global conspiracy!!!

lmao

[Kazinski]

Reading about in the London Times is hardly telepathy, nor is the BBC.

If you don't think using AI Hallucination to ban Jews from a Futbol match is bad, then how is this for proportion:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9y0lvpyqvo

Women abused as children by Rotherham gangs say police also sexually assaulted them

[Sarcastr0]

The London Times is indeed biased towards the right - you can look that up.

But the particular source isn't the issue. You being pointed to particular stories so you build up a confirmation biased shape of the UK that's utterly BS is the issue.

Like hauling up a story from over a decade ago. Yet again. It's pretty clear what's going on to most anyone looking, but you've never been into critical thinking when there's a story you want to push.

As you've said, you follow Tommy Robinson so you can monitor the status of heterodox voices in the UK.
So we all know you're just in it for the freedom of speech.

[Kazinski]

The London Times has been The Paper of Record since 1785.

So what if they have some conservatives like former Conservative Leader like William Hague? Even though the Conservatives aren't conservative.

Does the Left have to control everything?

If I might suggest you Change your screen name to "Sarcastr0(parody)". because not everyone will get it.

[Kazinski]

I might also add the Times is reporting verifiable facts, not just opinion:

"the dossier contained multiple unexplained errors, including a passage flagged by AI detection tools, referring to an event that had never happened, but was used to justify a controversial act...., when questioned, the response by the senior officer in charge was: “There are always going to be improvements that can be made in any piece of work of this scale”.

This scenario is not a hallucination. It actually happened. The officer was Mike O’Hara, assistant chief constable of West Midlands police. The decision was the one to ban all Israeli fans from attending a football match between Aston Villa and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Birmingham,"

Can you point to any journalist, left or right, or an official spokesman refuting those facts?

Or is the objection simply reporting on them at all?

[Sarcastr0]

Harping on this thing from ten years ago over and over again is a red flag.

But not to you.

Never to you.

[Kazinski]

The revelation was from this summer, so its relatively new news.

The BBC thought it was newsworthy, argue with them.

But the London times scoop is brand new, that's the one you were complaining about, because ..., well we both know why you were really complaining.

[OpinionsVary]

Question for the day: If Congress declares war, is the POTUS under a legal duty to prosecute that war? And what steps, if any, could Congress take to force an unwilling POTUS to take, say, offensive military action?

[loki13]

See, here's how the logic works.

The "Take Care Clause" allows the President to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. He can unilaterally fire, tax, declare war, and not spend money any time he wants to, because ALL UR POWERZ R BELONG TO TRUMP.

Also? The take care clause imposes no restriction on the President to actually take care that the laws be faithfully executed. KANT TELL UNITARY EXECUTIVE WUT 2 DO!

[Kazinski]

What if his generals say that's nuts to invade Tibet?

Of course the solution is that Congress can keep impeaching Presidents and Generals until they find one they like.

[Sarcastr0]

What an amazing solution.

Purely theoretical, utterly impractical.

MAGA seems to really enjoy these exercises in impossible checks and balances, so they can pretend that they're creating something other than a monarchy when for all practical purposes they've made Trump a king.

[Kazinski]

What's your solution, practically and constitutionally, if Congress declares war and the President doesn't want to prosecute it?

Come on we're waiting

[Sarcastr0]

As noted above, the President is under a legal duty to prosecute that war.

Impeachment is not about finding a President Congress likes.

[Kazinski]

No.

The President has his own responsibility as commander in chief with an obligation as the commander to not prosecute a war that would make no sense tactically or strategically.

The Constitution wasn't written to make the President errand boy to the Congress.

Lets take a Hypothetical, say Congress is so incensed about the October 7 attack, and the Americans killed and held Hostage (46 dead, 12 held hostage), and declared war against Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

And Joe Biden decides it doesn't make strategic, PR tactical sense to commit Troops in Gaza.

Would Joe Biden be flouting the Constitution and shirking his duty, or taking his responsibility of Commander in Chief seriously exercising his independent judgement?

[David Nieporent]

The Constitution wasn't written to make the President errand boy to the Congress.

I mean, it kinda was. How that plays out in the specific context of his CinC powers — which actually are in the constitution, as opposed to things like his fire-whoever-he-wants-to powers, which aren't — may pose some questions.

[Sarcastr0]

Article I was put first for a reason.

You are just kinda vibesing originalist research now.

You should read what other people have said, not just try to study it out yourself.

[Kazinski]

I am in constant awe of your capacity to embarrass yourself.

When you don't have an argument, which you don't, go with the 'vibes' whatever you think that means.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Congress' option is to Impeach and Remove.

[loki13]

Wow, the Noem hearing.

I appreciate that she was repeatedly grilled, and that they did not accept her answers of, "Noun Verb Biden" in response to simple questions. Also? That they repeatedly caught her in lies.

And her "I totes have to leave now because, uh, there's a dog that needs killing somewhere" was ... wow.

But overall? It just made me sad. Because this is our government. Quite simply, this should be unacceptable for a Cabinet Official. You are testifying, and Congress deserves to get accurate answers in order to perform their job.

This administration degrades all of us.

[Bob from Ohio]

The hearing was just an "unfortunate accident", like Bennie Thompson called the recent National Guardsman murder.

Not sad about that.

[Sarcastr0]

What a pathetic deflection.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dead soldiers are of no concern to democrats.

Performance questioning in dumb heraings, that's important.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Aside from this being an absolute lie, is no concern better than only using them to virtue signal (something you claim to dislike) as you do? I mean I’ve never seen you genuinely care about a victim, soldier or otherwise as a fellow human and not as a way to demonize people you disagree with.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I called you out for changing the subject because I don't care about dead soldiers.

As LTG noted above, nothing says the troops are a mere gesture and not real people like trying to use them as a rhetorical deflection.

You seem to want to defend Noem but have no legitimate ways to. What an obvious shitposter you've become.

[SRG2]

As a fuckwit, you're probably unaware that it's possible to be concerned about more than one thing at a time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What a pathetic comment by the Congressman.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The “no veterans have been deported lie” is wild because an honest answer sounds very reasonable: “the law does permit the deportation of veterans in certain circumstances. I am unprepared to discuss any specific cases at this time but if the Congressman has some cases that concern him I will be happy to discuss it further with him.”

So addicted to lying they do it when it’s an incredibly obvious trap.

[SRG2]

Recall her lie over the meaning of Habeas Corpus. She doesn't care.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Was that one a lie? It could also be straight up stupidity/ignorance there.

Another funny(?) thing about Noem: she probably should have lied/played stupid about the dog shooting thing. More telling than the lies is what truths she thinks are good for her!

[loki13]

I should add that the obvious lie (Noem said she had to leave for a meeting) was, of course, a lie.

The meeting she referred to had been cancelled.

This administration lies with the facility and desperation that normal people breathe; as if to stop would deprive them of existence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would be one thing if the Dems were going to be civil and fair to her -- and the disrupters Babbited.

[SRG2]

How does that excuse lying?

[Josh R]

The three losing arguments made by Trump on affordability:

1) Things are great. Affordability is a a hoax.
2) It's Biden's fault.
3) Only buy 2 or 3 dolls, not 37.

[loki13]

Truman: The Buck Stops Here.

Trump: If you want something, you pay me the bucks. Also? Whatever it is, it's Biden's fault.

[Kazinski]

Its not a hoax but its getting better:

1/1/2021 Real disposable personal income =100

Year___Change RDPI
2021-22. -10.93% 89.07

2022-2023 +4.32% 92.92

2023-24 +3.95% 96.59

2024-25 +1.79% 98.3

2025 thru 9/30 +1.26% 99.5

So Real Disposable Personal Income which is probably the best measure of consumer wellbeing, is almost back to where it was when Biden took office.

And its getting better.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96

[SimonP]

Indeed. All the economic indicators show us that people are wrong to feel like they can't afford anything.

Wasn't a winning campaign message for Biden/Harris, was it? Curious that you'd bother carrying the water after that experience, but here you are.

[Kazinski]

I said it wasn't a hoax, but I did say its getting better.

There is the data from the Fed, refute it if you like, but I showed my work.

Where's yours?

[SimonP]

Yes, I looked at your cherry-picked data, saw what was misleading about it, concluded that the RDPI seems to be trending towards the same line it has continued on for many years now.

But my point, in response to you, wasn't to dispute your assertion based on the Fed data. It was to make the point that - yes, that trend-line looks like it's about where we should be - doesn't seem to be convincing people that things are "getting better," does it?

It's exactly the same problem Biden found himself in. Disinflation was happening. The economic situation was improving. People didn't feel it, and insistence that things were good came off as out of touch. When that smiling energy vampire Hassett tells the press that he couldn't be happier with the way things are going, how do you think that plays with the exact same people who didn't buy it, when Biden was saying it?

[Josh R]

That only works if things get better, likely a lot better, from where we are now. That is, the GOP needs results that people feel in their own lives.

[DDHarriman]

How could a bunch of low IQ Somali's loot the US Treasury for over $1B in MN w/o institutional support?

[David Nieporent]

LOL. The NYT reports that DOJ has again gotten no true billed on a Letitia James indictment. Maybe they should try prosecuting her for throwing a sandwich at an ICE agent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/11/us/politics/grand-jury-letitia-james.html

[SRG2]

Is there any effective limit on how often the DoJ can go back to another grand jury? Perhaps when the ham in the ham sandwich starts turning green?

[David Nieporent]

The expiration of the statute of limitations is the only legally enforceable limit.

(If they go back multiple times, the person might have a strong selective/vindictive prosecution motion to dismiss — but such a motion presupposes that the grand jury eventually indicts. If it never does, then the prosecutor can keep going back.)

[OpinionsVary]

So a federal grand jury has declined to indict NY Attorney General Tish James for a second time. That's two no bills for her since the original case got kicked.

Stepping away from strict law as it is now - do you think their should be a limit to the number of times prosecutors should be able to run the same case through a grand jury? If prosecutors have effectively infinite attempts, they're going to eventually stumble on a grand jury through sheer chance that will return a true bill. Rather makes a joke of the already limited protections afforded to grand juries.

On the other hand, it's hard to argue with prosecutors getting a no bill, going away and getting better evidence and then coming back to try again. Just because you didn't have probable cause the first time, doesn't mean you didn't the second time.

On the other other hand, if we had some kind of check to the effect 'only re-do grand juries if you have new evidence' could that risk prosecutors intentionally going into grand juries with half their evidence, the rest held in reserve in case they need a redo. That doesn't seem good either.

Thoughts?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Probably not. When they’re at the point of multiple no-bills, it’s going to be an uphill slog even if they manage to get an indictment eventually.

Plus the statute of limitations and pre-indictment delay doctrine act as limits on endless presentations to the grand jury.

[loki13]

Two things-

First, in the specific case of James, every single no bill strengthens her motion(s) to dismiss, which ... I mean ... it wasn't like it needed a lot of help.

But (and I would defer to someone with more specific expertise) ... I don't think that IN A NORMAL ADMINISTRATION you would need any check. Let me explain why-

The Grand Jury (which does not require unanimity, is only probable cause, and ... IS LITERALLY THE PROSECUTOR PRESENTING THEIR CASE LIKE THEY WANT WITHOUT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY) is such a low hurdle that any reasonable prosecutor...

Well, no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case against James to begin with, which is why Trump had to fire multiple people in EDVA and then put in Halligan to even start the process.

Okay, but a reasonable prosecutor, if presented with a no bill, would realize that the case could never survive an actual jury.

That's the check. If you can't get it past a grand jury, you stop. The idea that the DOJ is so far up Trump's posterior that they'd do this twice is ... well, it says everything you need to know about how degraded the DOJ is now.

[David Nieporent]

But (and I would defer to someone with more specific expertise) ... I don't think that IN A NORMAL ADMINISTRATION you would need any check. Let me explain why-

As Loki probably knows, the standard procedure in a normal administration (it's in the DOJ manual) is that a prosecutor needs personal approval from the U.S. Attorney to go for a do over if the grand jury no true bills on the first attempt. In a normal administration, that's going to rein in any rogue vindictive prosecutor. Of course, in this administration the U.S. Attorneys are the rogue vindictive prosecutors.

Nothing in the stories I've read identified who brought the case before the grand jury this time. (Presumably even these incompetent losers aren't dumb enough to let Halligan do it. I assume it was some flunky.)

[Bwaaah]

I sat on a couple of grand juries and heard a lot of cases. In my experience, indictment had a low but rational bar. It was unusual for the State to not have clear evidence of the crimes alleged. Any murkiness in the State's case played as a signal that the state was reaching beyond clear justification. Grand jurors were disinclined to enable the state to proceed under any less than clear grounds.

When you know you're in a position to green-light a person getting royally screwed, possibly for life, you try to avoid doing that by mistake.

In James's case, the State having failed to clear that low bar twice, she should feel pretty safe. Inside the system, that plays not just as a loss for the State, but an embarrassment. Either somebody didn't do their homework, or somebody's playing too close to the edge of "justice."

[ducksalad]

Either somebody didn't do their homework

Is it fair to blame the staff that brought this to the grand jury? We can assume the orders came all the way from the top. The SC appears to be hostile to the idea that employees in the executive branch have any independent judgment whatsoever, they are legally nothing but an extensive of the president's will. If permitted they can offer an opinion, but it will be ignored, or perhaps they were instructed not to offer any opinion.

They could resign but all that would do is leave the regions they serve without competent people to handle normal, legitimate, non-political criminal cases. It's like a doctor disagreeing on principle with a hospital - sure, he can quit but then patients go untreated or he is replaced with a quack.

As always, we are not a lawyer.

[ducksalad]

Or an extension. Either way...

[Bwaaah]

James's case looks to me like them playing too close to the edge of justice.

Would I blame the staff that brought the case to the grand jury? No. It's certainly not unusual for attorneys general, elected or politically appointed, to pursue some special interests in cases that are not part of the routine prosecutorial mill. Some underling gets the assignment. I don't think it's wrong to take your best shot at it and trust that the system is a reasonable check against overzealousness.

I think we see resignations because U.S. Attorneys are being expected to game the system in ways that undermine important conventions; they are being expected to cheat.

In my view, the lower court judges remain pretty competently steadfastly committed to their benches and the law. The SC can shoot down lower court decisions; that doesn't unseat those judges, and I don't see judges rushing for the exits.

So I think we have an intact rule system, and there's no army of unconventional lawyers that the President can tap to ably navigate through that system using cheats. At best, cheaters will get gummed up in a system that is designed to not be that way.

I think most good capable prosecutors would resign before becoming cheaters. (Fortunately, there's a lot of routine prosecutions continuing along with able professionals doing the work while avoiding the political crosshairs.) There's probably a future after this Presidential administration, and I think it's likely to be much closer to normal. Known professionals with known capabilities will be waiting in the wings to return to conventional practice, and until then, they'll probably be working for competing interests.

But WANAL.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump Administration Scraps Plan to Mint Quarters Featuring Abolition, Suffrage

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-administration-scraps-plan-to-mint-quarters-featuring-abolition-suffrage-073583d4?reflink=article_copyURL_share&st=sRCnY7

This administration hates the actual historical United States.

[SRG2]

Yup. Perhaps they and the cultists here regard abolition and universal suffrage as "woke" or a DEI plot.

[hobie]

Sigh. More death threats from the chief law enforcement officer. Definitely no speech censorship happening here.

"“The New York Times, and some others, like to pretend that I am ‘slowing up,’ am maybe not as sharp as I once was, or am in poor physical health, knowing that it is not true, and knowing that I work very hard, probably harder than I have ever worked before,” Trump wrote in a lengthy Truth Social post.

“I will know when I am ‘slowing up,’ but it’s not now! After all of the work I have done with Medical Exams, Cognitive Exams, and everything else, I actually believe it’s seditious, perhaps even treasonous, for The New York Times, and others, to consistently do FAKE reports in order to libel and demean ‘THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,’” he added."

[ducksalad]

You're exaggerating. Sedition and treason could also be punished with life in prison and this time he left out the part about hanging. We should assume that omission was intentional.

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of threats, did you see that Indiana refused to participate in Trump's gerrymandering scheme, and Trump — not personally, I don't think, but definitely his administration — threatened that if they didn't he would cut off all funds for Indiana?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Heritage Action. Maybe a Vought move?

From what I understand it may have been driven by local politics since they’d have to crack the cities instead of just pack them and doing that can be a hassle for the congressional offices. Plus I imagine it’s a lot harder to demonize blue cities when you start having more direct responsibilities to the people in them.

Anyway, hopefully we might be towards the end of Trumpism and….ah shit he claimed he pardoned Tina Peters. Ah, well, nevertheless.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"ah shit he claimed he pardoned Tina Peters."

What, you don't think trying to rig a federal election is an offence against the United States?

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s an offense against the State of Colorado too

[ducksalad]

The actual statement is this:

Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!

Is exposing voter fraud a federal offense? He should have worded it better, e.g. "for any crimes she may have committed between 1904 and yesterday". Maybe his staff will clean it up before he personally signs it with his own hand using a genuine fountain pen.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

we might be towards the end of Trumpism

Okay. You ruined it. You aren't supposed to say it aloud.

A NYT article notes:

Mr. Trump, who continues to repeat his lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him, has embarked on a wide-ranging campaign to settle scores related to his effort to overturn the race. On the first day of his second term, he issued a sweeping grant of clemency to nearly all 1,600 people charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

But the president has no power to pardon state crimes. Mr. Trump could not, for example, pardon himself for the 34 felony convictions handed down in a New York trial last year. Because Ms. Peters is in prison for a state offense, Mr. Trump’s announcement on Thursday was primarily symbolic.

It continues:

While Mr. Trump’s declaration had little practical effect for Ms. Peters, it was a reminder that the president has used his expansive legal powers to reward and protect his allies, even as his Justice Department has shattered traditional norms of independence by following his orders to pursue criminal cases against perceived enemies.

Anyway, does even Trump think he can pardon state crimes? I don't really want to know. At least one contributor to this blog would probably find a reason to find a way.

The pardon (if he did it), for now, only protects her from any federal prosecution.

[hobie]

One of the benefits of being a lib who has championed every minority throughout my life (including all my Jewish and black friends), is that I don't have to soften or rationalize every single thing I do or say like the poor hayseeds here have to do every second.

These poor Indiana hayseeds have to try and justify their oath to the Constitution versus their loyalty to a man. I don't have that problem.