Gromnir

having now read the case a few times, am less optimistic. from the start, we assumed if this reached scotus, the political question doctrine might be the sticking point. as some might be aware, the US President don't have Constitutional power to declare war. Congress declares war. Congress has granted the President the capacity to respond quickly to emergency situations, including invasions... and tariffs, but that is a different issue... sorta. the point is that Congress is the Constitutional authority on war. if there is a question as to whether or not we are functional at war with tren de aragua, Congress likely gets the final say-so as 'posed to the Court, though paradoxical, the Court gets the final say-so on whether Congress in this case gets final say-so... which probable seems a bit confusing. there is two functional ways for trump to get around what looks on its face to be a smackdown from a trump appointed district judge in texas: 1) the Court demurs. scotus may simple says that whether or not the US is at war with tren de aragua is a political question not suitable for judicial review. Congress has options to declare that trump is exceeding his authority and it is up to that branch o' government to exercise their Constitutional authority, if they wish to do so. silence by Congress would functional = acquiescence. if scotus says the issue is a political question and not a legal one, then trump wins. 2) trump follows the sneaky advice of the district court. the district court appeared to criticize trump, but it also told him how to cure the defect in his invocation o' the AEA. ... lie to me such were the practical advice o' the judge. the judge observed that the executive needed to provide legal sufficient facts supporting AEA invocation, but that in his capacity he could not challenge the veracity of trump's provided facts. as such, trump needs to provide facts which support the claim that tren de aragua is a foreign invader (e.g. describe forces on the ground in aurora or wherever, directed by a foreign power to undermine the US national government,) but the judge will not question the validity o' such facts provided. the court will assume the facts provided is true and decide if such provided facts is legal sufficient to justify the use of the AEA. trump lies = trump wins. another example o' being beat to death with the three wise monkeys? with any other administration one might assume it would be political impossible to get away with outright fabrication o' lies made in Court which claim a gang, at the behest o' a foreign power, is murdering US citizens and holding american soil as part o' a plan to undermine the national sovereignty o' the United States of America. now go ahead and convince self that such would be a bridge too far for trump. we dare you. HA! Good Fun!

am suspecting it were less about guts and more a matter o' common sense. until our freshman year in college, our knee-jerk reaction when dealing with law enforcement were to respond with snark... and if am being complete self-honest, barely disguised disdain. poor judgement on our part. were not US, but we once did need undergo a strip search and a rather unpleasant interrogation in an asian country, and were not even our scintillating personality which provoked the unpleasantness. simple misunderstanding. am s'posing the most shocking part o' the incident is that we received an apology, which we were informed almost never happened. regardless, in spite o' the wisdom which comes with age and experience, we nevertheless need tamp down an extreme strong desire to respond to any predictable stoopid law enforcement query with snark. am in our freaking fifties and even so am finding that we need take a deep breath and count to at least five before responding to any kinda cop question 'cause am knowing our reflex and unfiltered response will not benefit us in anyway. anyways, our point is that while it shouldn't be difficult to distinguish bravery from abject stoopid... HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

just as an fyi, for those unaware, the general inadmissibility o' hearsay is overcome by admission. hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and that definition is way more complex than it first appears, way too complex to full explain in a post. the arcane nature o' the hearsay rule is made more eye-roll worthy as there is also a whole lotta exceptions to the rule, including but not limited to death bed utterances and various statements which is collected in the ordinary course o' public and medical record keeping. statements against the speaker's interest, and more specific, admissions, is also gonna result in an exception. cops always ask you if you are aware o' why you were pulled over in the hopes of eliciting an admission. HA! Good Fun!

am knowing trump ms13 tattoo misunderstanding has justifiably received the most attention, but the portion highlighted by the daily show from 5:59-7:01 might be our favorite. HA! Good Fun!

complete separate issue trump appointed judge says we aren't being invaded by tren de aragua 36 pp ain't that long, but am admitting am not an expert on the case law, so is gonna take time for us to review-- cases is from ~1800 or ww2 and even when we were representing gang members for a living, the alien enemies act were not considered relevant. recommended: steve vladek's blsky and https://www.justsecurity.org/ will likely have useful input before we do. HA! Good Fun! ps the decision from the texas federal court applies only to venezuelan detainees in the southern district of texas. extreme limited and easy for the fed to ignore from a practical perspective.

the only two people in the trump administration who am certain is pro tariff is trump and peter navarro. of particular note, watch from ~53 sec to 1:23. navarro explains how the .3% contraction of the gdp is good news 'cause but for tariffs, we woulda' seen 3% growth. ... so, trump tells us he can't be blamed for bad gdp numbers 'cause is still biden's economy, but his personal tariff whisperer then goes out and explains that but for tariffs, the economy were doing supercalifragilistic? and that's good news? the tariffs were a man-made disaster... a man-made disaster attributable to one person, but the trump folks messaging is so undisciplined that they is sometimes telling the truth by accident. the thing is, on fox news and elsewhere, navarro, lutnick, bessent and trump messages is being massaged 'til they fit a useful maga narrative. oh, and for the folks who is still convinced doge is anything other than a scam so that elon musk can get his hands on more data to bolster his ai aspirations, trump 2.0 has spent more than biden did in his first 100 days. am knowing many has already memory hole'd 2021, but just a reminder, we were still dealing with a global pandemic at the time. so much for cutting enough waste, fraud and abuse to cover the proposed new tax cuts for the rich, eh? Despite Trump's promised cuts, U.S. spent more than $200 billion more in first 100 days than last year DOGE's website claims the task force has already saved that much, at $160 billion, between canceling grants, contracts and leases and making cuts to the federal workforce. On its "wall of receipts" site online, the office reports the largest reductions so far come from the Department of Health and Human Services, General Services Administration, Department of Education, Department of Labor and Office of Personnel Management. Only about $60 billion, or less than 40%, of that alleged savings are itemized on the office's online "wall of receipts" and even those itemizations have included errors and lax documentation. In his work at the American Enterprise Institute, Malkus said his review indicates the savings is more likely to be around $80 billion. ... and btw, since we weren't around to pontificate on the matter, cutting legislative and executive branch programs because they is woke or dei is not addressing fraud, waste and abuse. pay two different organizations to do same thing is wasteful. pay an organization $10 million to deliver widgets but only get $10 thousand in widgets, with the rest o' the money being pocketed by organization administrators is likely fraudulent. but those aren't the kinda things doge cuts. maybe you thinks funding sesame street for middle eastern broadcast is stoopid. and perhaps you feel that saving malnourished kids in the sudan, or supplying south african expectant mothers with aids medicines is bad policy, but cutting those programs ain't necessarily addressing fraud, waste or abuse. those is policy choices and Congressmen, when they pass budgets, can stop funding o' such programs if they want to do so. some o' these programs is executive branch exclusive, and the President don't need to supply a reason to cut 'em, but describing as the elimination o' waste, fraud and abuse is misleading at best if what is actual happening is that elon and trump is getting rid of programs they don't like, even if those programs is being run efficient and effective. if some lib ne'er-do-well were getting rich off o' plumpynut, and the kids in the sudan were not actual receiving the lifesaving nutritional supplement, that would be an example o' addressing waste, fraud or abuse. if narcan didn't actual do anything, if it were somekinda snake oil, then we would cheer doge narcan cuts. ... with two exceptions, we gotta give trump 2.0 credit, 'cause the project 2025 folks and other did an impressive job o' wargaming this sh!te out. example: going after law firms in the way trump 2.0 has done so shocked us 'cause it didn't even need to be successful to have the desired effect. the mergers and acquisitions folks at these firms made a calculated decision to cave to trump demands particular after they saw that other firms not targeted by trump were trying to peel off clients from targeted firms. many o' the firms gave up w/o a fight even though they knew they would win in a fight in large part 'cause most o' their business were actual related to government contracts. if you is a multimillion or billion dollar client who has an sec issue you need handled, why would you stick with a firm trump had effectively declared persona non grata? so even if trump keeps losing in court, he has effective reduced the pool of potential lawyers willing to take on cases, which makes future trump loses less likely. who do you think is representing the undocumented immigrants in most o' the fed cases? you might be surprised to learn just how much o' pro bono work the big firms do, and the big washington and new york firms trump targeted is known for taking on a noteworthy proportion o' immigration cases as part o' their pro bono portfolios. another example: cecot. f*&%^. honest, am conceding a complete failure o' imagination insofar as the deal trump brokered with el salvador... and looks like rwanda might be the next el salvador. yeah, we assumed that the fed would play habeas corpus shenanigans by moving potential deportees asap to the most friendly court districts imaginable, but again, we saw deportation as the goal. we actually thought the alien enemies act would be invoked day 1, and we were surprised by the absence o' initial executive orders making use o' the alien enemies act. we so did not foresee that instead o' deporting those aurora colorado gang members who had taken over the city, trump would send 'em to prisons controlled by friendly governments as a way to avoid due process. just 'cause we loathe what trump is doing to undocumented immigrants don't mean we need ignore how ruthlessly clever were some o' the planning which went into stuff such as cecot. am bringing up the almost reptilian cunning o' the trump folks in implementing their schemes 'cause doge were a noteworthy exception. in truth, we sees two HUGE exceptions: doge and tariffs. am assuming doge were mostly an elon musk pet project, and so it weren't part o' the pre inauguration project 2025 planning. shouldn't be a surprise doge were implemented in the same haphazard manner musk used when he took over and fixed/broke twitter. tariffs were, am guessing, something most o' project 2025 were hopeful clearer heads could convince trump to embrace reason, as happened when trump wanted to tariff mexico during his first term. we posted in 2019 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/447374-trump-plans-to-declare-new-national-emergency-to-impose-tariffs/ a couple days later, trump had already caved. not that it matters at this point, but am not sure why trump keeps conflating tariffs and trade deficits, but he sees those two things as inextricable linked. beyond reason he believes that the US is getting screwed by any nation with whom we have a trade deficit, and he only sees a trade deficit on goods as relevant, complete ignoring services. point is, am thinking there were no real plan for widespread tariffs on any and all nations with whom we has a goods trade deficit, as well as those penguins, 'cause the wargaming for such tariffs were predictable. see, brought it back to tariffs. am trying to do the trump weave. HA! Good Fun! ps we noted the charlie fox o' doge and tariffs, but we did skip trump's top appointees. when kash patel, tulsi, rfk jr., pete hegseth and pam bondi got their positions in trump 2.0, we were outraged that those folks were partisan to a comical degree, with conflicts of interest and character flaws which woulda' torpedoed any past administration's efforts to have 'em gain senate approval. in retrospect, perhaps we should be relieved, 'cause one o' the few obstacles to project 2025 successful implementation is the incompetence o' trump's top loyalists.

apologies for the double https://www.instagram.com/stopicenet/reel/DI5r8cRRtv4/ americans might be surprised to learn the feds likely don't need an arrest warrant for these kinda situations. am suspecting one reason why the guy in the vid is being detained at a courthouse is to avoid needing to have to deal with judges and warrants. arrest at home? yeah, then you need a warrant. it often makes sense to get an arrest warrant when you are arresting sans non exigent circumstances, but you do not necessarily need such. but why the plain clothes? why the refusal to show badges? why the balaclava ski mask? and no offense to mr. man-bun in the video, but am having met a whole lotta cops over the years and these guys don't seem like cops-- attitude is wrong and behavior is... weird. these "cops" seem far too anxious to be police with any kinda experience. am knowing it sounds ridiculous, but our thought on watching the vid were, "is homeland security deputizing rando office personnel?" and again, why the refusal to show badges? even if you secret squirrel your way into explaining the plain clothes, then why don't they display badges when making their arrest? and the ski mask? serious? everything about the arrest just looks wrong and am seeing so much potential for accident. HA! Good Fun! ps am certain almost nobody will watch, but... in the linked vid, trump is talking to a room full o' financial experts about the economy and inflation. almost every time trump said something outrageously stoopid, the people in the audience cheered/applauded. am gonna suggest that everybody in that audience who applauded knew trump were either lying or stoopid... or both, but they cheered anyway. those folks in the audience wanted a 2025 extension o' the previous trump tax cuts and they wanted more deregulation, so they not only ignored trump lies/stoopid, but they cheered. as such, is hardly a surprise politicians can get away with distorting economic realities. late edit to avoid double and

Secret Deals, Foreign Investments, Presidential Policy Changes: The Rise of Trump’s Crypto Firm A Times examination of World Liberty’s rapid ascent from fledgling startup to international force — and Mr. Trump’s conversion from crypto skeptic to industry cheerleader — highlights the range of conflicts of interest trailing the company: World Liberty has directly benefited from Mr. Trump’s official actions, such as his announcement of a federal crypto stockpile that would include a digital currency the firm has invested in. The president’s announcement caused a temporary jump in the value of World Liberty’s holdings. World Liberty has sold its cryptocurrency to investors abroad, including in Israel and Hong Kong, according to interviews and data obtained by The Times, establishing a new avenue for foreign businesses to try to curry favor with Mr. Trump. Several investors in World Liberty’s coin managed firms that the federal government accused of wrongdoing. They include an executive whose fraud case was suspended after he invested millions of dollars in World Liberty. Other investors and business partners, some of whom haven’t been publicly identified before, are looking to expand in ways that will require the Trump administration’s approval. World Liberty proposed swapping cryptocurrencies with at least five start-ups, and often used the Trump name to solicit steep payments as part of the deals. Even in an industry with a disreputable history, the deals raised alarm among veteran executives. ... one other portion... “It’s one of the more successful things we’ve ever done,” Eric Trump, the president’s son who runs the family business, said in an interview this month at the Trump Doral golf course in Florida. He and his older brother, Donald Trump Jr., are actively involved in World Liberty, though they rely on three partners to oversee the daily operations. Two of them, Mr. Folkman and Chase Herro, have a mixed track record in crypto. The other is Zach Witkoff, the son of Mr. Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, who is also a World Liberty founder. In recent days, Zach Witkoff, Mr. Folkman and Mr. Herro were in Pakistan meeting with the country’s prime minister, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, and other top government officials to discuss World Liberty. The trip, complete with limousines, a dance performance and police escorts, seamlessly blended the president’s business interests with the trappings of a state visit. (Mr. Wachsman said no U.S. government officials were involved in the meetings.) President Trump has noted that conflict of interest laws do not apply to him, and that he has broad immunity for official actions he takes as president. ... is paywall, but we now get a free repeating three-day subscription via our public library and am suspecting many other folks in the US may do the same. most americans don't know what trump is doing, and so many o' the rest is whatabouting themselves into knots with invocations o' nanacy pelosi insider trading stories and the hunter biden laptop that nothing will come o' stories such as this no matter how lurid the details. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna concede we added the link at the last second before posting when a thought occurred to us: the only person am certain is gonna get this is amentep. HA! Good Fun!

too obvious to need be stated response: politicians is able to lie, misrepresent or just plain be wrong 'bout inflation w/o real repercussions because electorates don't understand inflation. is actual ok that most voters don't get micro and macroeconomic, but in the past, before the internet, those voters recognized that they only had the most surface level understanding o' economics even if they went to university and got some kinda liberal arts or stem degree not related to econ. in the 20th century and earlier, the electorate relied on reputable voices/sources for their econ education, just as they relied on experts to answer their medical, meteorological and early childhood education questions. 2025 is different 'cause expertise don't mean anything. voters either don't care enough to do research, or worse, when they do self education, they rely on internet searches to find sources that already support their "feels" or the position o' their chosen tribe, at which point they then believe they is experts. the problem is not that people are dumber or less educated today than they was twenty years past. today, too many voters don't care and just as many o' those remaining who do care only wanna listen to answers which support their previous held position. however, this ain't a new problem, at least not in the US. back in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the story were same, with americans furious about immigrants w/o real cause, coupled with transformative technologies changing what the majority population thought o' as cornerstones o' american culture and economy. virtual all the founding fathers were farmers, but by the late 19th century, manufacturing were taking over and waves o' immigrants were making america look, sound and even smell different, 'causing fear and anxiety 'mongst the electorate. needed to protect the american way o' life, right? https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Passes_Smoot_Hawley_Tariff.htm "A thousand economists signed a petition, drafted by a Chicago economist, and future U.S. senator, Paul Douglas, that implored the president to veto the tariff. “Poor Hoover wanted to take our advice,” Paul Douglas mused, but he could not bring himself to break with his own party’s congressional leadership. Ignoring the experts, Hoover signed the tariff on June 17, 1930." (edit: the original envisioned 1930 tariffs were limited and targeted, but politicians, recognizing the groundswell of popular support for tariffs, kept adding to the industries and products which would eventual be covered by smoot-hawley. the result were a vicious circle o' stoopid with a handful o' populists convincing the public that simple were the solution to all their problems: 1) get rid and/or limit immigration ... 'cause those dirty foreigners were committing crimes and taking american jobs; and 2) support protectionist policies which would save american farms/farmers and simultaneous limit foreign competition o' american manufacturing. win al around. experts pointed out how the tariffs were self destructive and it is likely many o' the politicians supporting the tariffs knew that tariffs would result in a kinda economic self-immolation, but americans wanted to believe in easy solutions and there were enough politicians and "experts" willing to tell those frightened americans what they wanted to hear. sound familiar?) back in the late 1920s, with historic divisiveness not seen since the civil war, experts were ignored. politicians spun to convince or appease their potential voters knowing it were in their best interest to ignore or even mock experts. same happened pre antebellum btw. the more frightened and divided is the electorate, the easier it is to fool 'em by telling 'em what they want to hear, or by confirming that their fears is justified. the internet, which were 'sposed to make it easier to self educate has ironic led to people being even more easily manipulated. no longer does the electorate need rely on experts whom they likely do not trust. instead, the internet is a useful tool for making most people believe they is experts when what they is typical doing is nothing more than repeating whatever is the narrative o' their chosen tribe. again, is no real mystery and is definite not new. added: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/29/tariffs-amazon-prime-day-sellers-report cowardice from big biz being the most predictable response in 2025, bezos backing down should also come as little surprise. HA! Good Fun!

we were alive in 1978 when the last soviet venus probe fell back to earth. lee majors is now an octogenarian, but perhaps he can save us this time as well. HA! Good Fun!

the government's own affidavits submitted severe undermine the narrative that the judge were trying obstruct an arrest, or at the very least, the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard needed to prove intent o' the judge is looking to be an insurmountable hurdle. first, pretty much no judge allows arrests in their courtroom, so there is a question as to what the heck the fed agents were doing in the first place as they were clear doing not business as usual. maybe 'cause the public don't know what is ordinary, the judge ejecting the feds from her court sounds nefarious but it most certain is not. second, the judge's actions don't look particular obstructive when you read details. while the judge did send flores-ruiz out of her court through the jury door, that egress point led to only one exit-- a hallway where, according to the fed's affidavit, two agents were waiting. if judge dugan were trying something sneaky, then sending him virtual into the arms o' the feds looks shaky. heck, again, according to the fed's own affidavit, flores-ruiz took the elevator down to the ground floor o' the courthouse before he tried to run, and he were not alone in the elevator but were in fact accompanied by a fed agent. ... found a useful link is a bit o' unnecessary editorializing, but read all fourteen. again, even the government has gotta know beyond a reasonable doubt is goanna be insurmountable, so the arrest o' the judge and detainment looks performative. this also looks pretty bad. maga has tried to make this a damned if you do scenario and they once again complete miss the underlying due process aspect. the government offers no meaningful proof, but they claim the deported mothers were asked whether they wanted to bring their US citizen children with 'em and they responded in the affirmative. maga: you libs are gonna be angry no matter what. if there is child separation, you whine. if the child stays with the parent and is deported, the social justice warriors complain. it's a no win. Gromnir: bs we don't have any evidence the mothers agreed other than government says so, but beyond that, we are told these women weren't allowed to talk to family or lawyers when confronted with the dilemma o' whether or not to leave their children in the US. the children, who is US citizens, unquestionable deserve due process before deportation and getting a head nod or a quick signature on a form from mom before being loaded on a plane is unlikely to satisfy due process. furthermore, the law says the mothers get process. even if you think undocumented immigrants don't deserve process, the law says otherwise... and thank god for that fact. example: have mentioned more than once that Gromnir looks quite a bit like esai morales, sans facial hair and the grey. inexplicable have very little grey hair thus far. anyways, tomorrow we could be picked up off the street by ice, thrown in a van, and subsequent sent to el salvador 'cause we look like an undocumented immigrant on some list. once in cecot, the US could claim there were no way for them to correct their mistake. oopsies. so sorry. due process is those steps which allows Gromnir to challenge the government before or after they does something wrong. if the government claims we is undocumented, a gang member, insurrectionist or terrorist, we should have a way to contest those assertions, no? again, like it or not, undocumented folks get due process 'cause its in the freaking Constitution. not only do we give undocumented folks process to prevent mistakes, but Congress also passed all kinda laws making it possible for undocumented folks to make asylum claims, so being undocumented don't necessarily mean they got no right to be in the US. relative quick aside, am having mentioned how for a few years we worked at a juvenile detention facility. am mentioning 'cause you would likely be shocked to discover just how little process is involved with categorizing a person as a gang member. we were warned during training that while a kid could have their criminal record expunged when they reached eighteen, the gang label would potential stick with kids for life. when a kid were brought into juvenile hall, during the intake process, we would affix appropriate labels to their file... or update existing labels. gang affiliation were one such label. nothing nefarious for you numerous acab folks. example: s-1 were a designation which indicated that a kid were suicidal or had a history o' self harm. s-1 kids were typical housed with a roommate but for obvious reasons the roommate would not be s-1; two s-1 in the same room were a recipe for tragedy. ok, but there were also designations which indicated an individual were a sexual predator, and those kids were typical housed solo, 'cause bad things could happen at night and between room checks. so what do you do if a kid is both suicidal AND a sexual predator... we don't need to get into all the ugly details, but as mentioned, one o' those "s- __" designations we utilized at juvenile hall were gang affiliation. you can likely guess why the staff at a juvenile hall would wanna know if a kid were a gang member and to which gang they had an affiliation. the thing is, that s-6 designation decision likely took less than a minute o' reflection by staff. typical factors: tattoos, input from the cop dropping off the kid at the hall, self-identification o' the minor. on busy days/nights at juvenile hall, there were considerable motivation to get kids processed asap. personal, we only ever listed a kid as s-6 if they claimed to be a gang member... we let unit staff who had more time figure it out. the thing is, am also confident a few kids lied about gang affiliation when asked. a few o' the folks sent to cecot were first identified as tren de aragua when they were minors and am having only a little doubt that the original labeling were 'bout as probative as what we saw day in, and day out working at juvenile hall. as such am not shocked so many ended up in cecot for little other than suspicious tattoos and maybe secondhand input from a cop. is perhaps worse to realize that the gang identification efforts used to send so many to a dystopian hell hole were likely less sinister than you believe and instead were ordinary. some clown working at a juvenile hall or jail in kokomo, indiana six years ago probable spent less than a minute deciding whether or not a new intake were a gang member, and that initial assessment stuck. HA! Good Fun!

am actual not familiar with the mechanics o' what happened... am only able to speak to law/legal issues. as is typical for those in our profession, reality and all its attendant filthy details is often an annoying distraction from the important questions. <-- sarcasm. perhaps ironic, am able to speak to alito's curiously obtuse dissent w/o needing get into the legal weeds-- you not need be a lawyer to see problem with alito's position. presumptively, the reason scotus provided middle of the night and weekend emergency relief is 'cause the aclu, on behalf o' their clients, informed the Court that the government had put venezuelans on buses seeming with the intent o' taking 'em beyond the physical jurisdiction o' current habeas rulings limiting their deportation, so as to send 'em to el salvador w/o additional meaningful due process. ... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/legal-fight-raged-ice-buses-filled-venezuelans-heading-airport-turned-rcna202007 and today we learned o' more government shenanigans albeit in a tangential related case. https://www.justsecurity.org/110842/ice-dod-custody-deportations-cecot/ "The D.V.D. case directly affects the administration’s ability to deport Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador without an opportunity for them to present their claims of potential torture as required by federal statute. As I discuss at greater length in the substack, a key element to focus upon is that ICE retained custody over the detainees following the court’s Mar. 28 order and then appeared to switch them over to the Department of Defense (DoD) for transfer by military plane to El Salvador. The line of defense (some would say the game) being played here by the government is that DHS/ICE is a named defendant in the case but DOD is not." to get around a temporary restraining order which prevented ice/dhs from sending detainees out of the country, the government had ice/dhs transfer custody of detainees to the Department of Defense, who then went ahead and deported individuals protected by the tro. dude. am aware this is the kinda sh!te people believe is what attorneys do for a living, but that kinda rulez lawyering which happens in the worst dnd campaigns most certainly don't fly with federal judges. the tro named ice/dhs and not dod, but there is also standard boilerplate language in those tros which covers pretty much anybody working for/with or in aid o' those named in the tro, and if ice (executive branch o' the fed government) formal transferred custody of the detainees to dod (also part of the executive branch o' the fed government,) then is no court in the land which is gonna three wise monkey their way outta holding dod just as bound by the tro as ice. most courts has gotta be losing the patience and faith typical afforded to the executive. is utter unreasonable to pretend this is all just same ol' same ol'. alito pretending mock indignation when the trump administration is making blatant their efforts to thwart and undermine Court orders is less than compelling. again, the government had detainees on buses headed to an airport. taking those detainees outta the country from the texas district woulda' been illegal, but the shell game o' moving detainees just ahead o' court orders from new jersey or dc were something the feds had already done. even so, it is complete ridiculous to suggest the government would try the same shenanigans in texas, right? "fool me once..." so, for what reason did alito and thomas believe ice were carrying out their little fieldtrip? maybe the venezuelans were being taken for a weekend disneyworld excursion? even if you can imagine an innocuous explanation for the government's actions, what reasonable person would complete dismiss the possibility that the feds were trying to exploit the ordinary slow pace o' a typical judicial response? the fact the government were using "counterterrorism operations" as an excuse for not supplying details to plaintiffs AND the Court is not only beyond the pale, but it should make reasonable persons more suspicious about the government motives, no? nevertheless, alito and thomas can't figure why the aclu and the Court majority is getting their shorts in a twist. ... other than death penalty executions, it is difficult to imagine a more clear example o' the need for emergency intervention by the Court than we see regarding the possible extra judicial deportation of detainees to el salvador... and we remain reluctant to call such activities "deportations" as what is happening is that the US, without due process, is sending residents o' this country to a prison in el salvador for an indeterminate period a time. wtf

am having mentioned previous how am shamefaced by the recognition that if we want legit nba arena or mlb park nachos, then queso sans american cheese or velveeta just don't match our expectations. ... am almost never bothering to click on youtube suggested links, but it has happened. had literal never watched the guy previous, but we saw the video thumbnail and for some reason we were simultaneous reminiscing 'bout campbell's condensed bean with bacon soup. we make a bean and ham/bacon soup that utilizes mayocoba beans, a soup which for us is a winter month staple and am recognizing our version has a similar flavor profile to the campbell's condensed version, so for funsies we clicked on the link to see where bean and bacon ranked. am so complete derisive o' internet ranking videos or lists, so is double strange we bothered to watch. triple strange is we watched even when we noticed bean and bacon were not one o' the soups he rated. *shrug* after seeing babish comments on the spicy nacho cheese soup, we bought a couple cans and experimented. first effort we tried straight. not great, but we understood babish observations. second effort had us add evaporated milk, a bit o' jalapeno brine and some corona beer. better. eventual tried five or six different varieties, but arguable the best result were when we shredded a few ounces o' decent sharp cheddar cheese and added it to the soup-- that's it, just the can o' soup warmed up and shredded sharp cheddar stirred into the molten mixture. diabolical simple and pretty much exact what we were hoping to achieve. online we has seen the campbell's soup priced as low as $.85 but typical ~$1.72. is not as if am regular making nachos or anything which would require a nacho cheese sauce, but given how shelf stable and cheap is the soup, am expecting am gonna always have a couple cans in the pantry henceforth. ... so weird. HA! Good Fun!

quick addition on the "jurisdiction" angle for the birthright citizenship issue https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/federally-sentenced-non-us-citizens point is the fed has tried, convicted and imprisoned undocumented immigrants for many years. is current tens of thousands o' undocumented immigrants in US prisons. if the US has no jurisdiction over such people, akin to arjen rudd, then all o' those folks shoulda' been deported as 'posed to incarcerated. maybe you thinks all the undocumented in US prisons should be deported, but the point is that US courts has for years been acting as if they got jurisdiction and is not as if those imprisoned never thought to challenge jurisdiction. the question has been asked and answered more than once and as such there isn't any real jurisdiction question... unless scotus decides there is a question. scotus is not bound by precedent or tradition. roe were overturned and we got dobbs. plessey were overturned and we got brown. be careful when expressing outrage over the Court overturning precedent. the thing is, unlike plessey or korematsu, we ain't had decades o' legal, academic and public outrage fueling a push to overturn precedent. at least with dobbs there were a widespread recognition even by supporters of a fundamental right to abortion that the original roe plurality were based on a kinda fuzzy legal basis. with birthright citizenship, the plain meaning o' the text o' the fourteenth amendment is supported by strong case law and fed practice as well as, until recent, a widespread public assumption that birthright citizenship were valid. but again, am gonna admit the Presidential immunity case kinda shook us. that a bunch of self-described textualists could conjure up Presidential immunity w/o even recognizing or responding to the potential dangers o' a chief executive free o' the threat o' criminal prosecution for any and all official acts, made it clear to us that the Court conservatives had abandoned core legal principles. is only tangential related (for now,) but am gonna concede we didn't foresee cecot. even if the Court went complete spineless and accepted the trump administration arguments for deporting tren de aragua members sans any due process finding that those deported is in fact members o' tren de aragua, then am not sure how we get indefinite incarceration in an el salvadoran hell hole as = deportation. trump argument seems to be that the President has the authority to remove undocumented immigrants, seditionists, insurrectionists and terrorists beyond US borders... and once those persons is in fact beyond US international waters/borders, then the Courts no longer have any jurisdiction in the matter, so cecot is okie dokie. keep in mind that w/o due process, trump could decide that literal everybody fits in one o' the aforementioned categories. the legal basis for sending people to cecot has nothing to do with a person's actual status as a gang member but is rather a recognition that once beyond the jurisdiction o' the Court's habeas power, the President has the sole authority under the Constitution to decide fates. the legal argument is that as long as Trump acts faster than the Courts, any person he successful removes beyond US borders/air space could be sent to cecot... and when we say "successful removes," am making a physical/geographical observation as 'posed to a legal one. is one o' the aforementioned right v. legal situations. HA! Good Fun!

Supreme Court blocks, for now, new deportations under 18th century wartime law "Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented." via the washington post, The American Civil Liberties Union said several migrants at an immigration detention center in North Texas had received written notices of removal over the past several days, and a second group of unknown number was told to get ready for travel Friday. Copies of those notices, filed in court, were written only in English and said the recipient had been “determined to be an Alien Enemy” and would be deported. Aside from stating that the recipient can “make a phone call,” the notices do not inform those who receive them when they will be deported, that they are entitled to contest their removal or outline the means for doing so, the ACLU said. “There’s no box to check to say I want to contest,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said during a hastily convened Friday evening hearing in federal court in Washington. “There’s nothing that says there is a right to contest, much less the time frame.” ... A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security declined to respond to a request for comment on the ACLU’s claims in its filings. “We are not going to reveal the details of counter terrorism operations, but we are complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling,” Tricia McLaughlin said in an email statement. (emphasis added by Gromnir) am also outraged (but unsurprised) by trump's harvard shenanigans, but we got limited vitriol to go around particular as am getting ready to receive easter guests. given trump's monumental economy blunders, the administration's renewed targeting o' immigration and the intellectual elites is, we s'pose, fresh meat to keep the base sated. the lack o' noteworthy new trump sponsored dei and and/or trans outrages this past week is perhaps the only genuine wrinkle in what we expected. HA! Good Fun!

chances are most have not read the recent Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III opinion. opinion were released late thursday after noon, so it came after our recent reply @Pidesco regarding Constitutional crisis. https://time.com/7278774/judge-harvie-wilkinson-opinion-read-full-text-trump-abrego-garcia/ ... we were gonna highlight important passages, but virtual the entire opinion is quotable. furthermore, the Judge is clear not so much talking to the executive branch as he is addressing the US public and history. Wilkinson calls out not just what is illegal 'bout the executive branch position, but he identifies that a terrible wrong is being done... and he points out that if the government position were embraced, it would mean that trump could disappear american citizens w/o due process and nobody would be able to stop him. 'course, with the Presidential immunity case, an appellate Judge identified the infamous seal team six scenario the only punishment for a President doing a seal team 6 is through impeachment and conviction. given that the scotus majority, beyond reason, did not find such a nightmare scenario compelling, am at a loss predicting whether they would similar be ok with trump disappearing american citizens to el salvador or elsewhere and then shrugging off requests for the return o' those citizens. the 9-0 opinion requiring the executive branch to facilitate garcia's return suggests a kinda due process red line, but if forced to make an explicit condemnation o' the chief executive when it appears trump will ignore a Court ruling with which he disagrees, am uncertain o' the outcome. as bad as is our ambivalence regarding the Court's moral compass, am certain too large a percentage o' americans would be indifferent to any trump excess. ...

the Court already has answered the jurisdiction question when it found that the executive not only failed to afford due process to those it "deported" to el salvador but that it must facilitate the return o' mr. garcia so that he might be provided a legal sufficient hearing to assess his deportation viability. Court were 9-0 on the aforementioned question(s.) w/o jurisdiction, the Court coulda/woulda declared the issues moot. w/o jurisdiction, you got a detective murtagh conundrum. regardless, if even undocumented immigrants now languishing in cecot were subject to the jurisdiction o' the fed, it would take a preposterous exercise in mental gymnastics to then find that children o' such aliens born in the US are not subject to jurisdiction. on its face, there really is no issue in play. 1) plain language interpretation hurts trump efforts. "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." other than during the ugly nativist late 19th and early 20th century period, the above language has consistent been read by academics, lawyers and regular people to include birthright citizenship. even during the nativist years, there were Court cases which clarified the matter, which brings us to... 2) US v wong kim ark https://www.facebook.com/AmericanExperiencePBS/videos/wong-kim-ark-the-chinese-exclusion-act-american-experience-pbs/28276366908645263/ is a few other such cases and they is all consistent. 3) THIS Court has already functional answered the question again, the 9-0 holding in the garcia matter complete undermines the notion there is a jurisdiction question. as a bonus, reading the Trump government argument serious means Gromnir loses citizenship. doj cites case law dealing with native americans to support their applicability o' nul jurisdiction for illegal immigrants. as such, many native americans o' treaty recognized tribes would effective be stripped o' US citizenship if the Court embraces the trump doj position. there is no case here... but there were no real case for Presidential immunity neither. no case law supporting. no Constitutional text. no historical understanding. HA! Good Fun! ps in the spirit o' full disclosure, there is one possible grey area which nevertheless doesn't apply to the vast majority o' children o' undocumented immigrants-- the children o' an invading occupation force would not be given US birthright citizenship. so, even if the Court were to accept the trump position that tren de aragua is an invading force not subject to the jurisdiction o' the US, and that the children o' tren de aragua don't get birthright citizenship (a position already seeming undermined by the recent 9-0 scotus decision,) the vast majority o' the individuals born to undocumented immigrants in the US would not be subject to the occupation force exception to citizenship.

clarification, 'cause we got a few folks who reflexive blm whenever protests is mentioned. am suspecting in the coming months we will be told how george bush used the insurrection act in 1992 to send troops to help end riots in los angeles. a key point to recollect is that the governor o' california in 1992 requested assistance o' fed troops. converse, during the summer 2020 riots, no state governor or legislature asked for fed assistance. trump did not use the insurrection act in 2020 to kidnap people off o' the streets o' portland and whisk 'em away to be temporary "imprisoned" and interrogated w/o assistance o' counsel offered. william barr, arguable evil but most certain not dumb, found a loophole and because citizens detained were never charged with anything, they could not bring civil rights claims against the fed government. the thing is, 'cause trump didn't use the insurrection act, he could not mobilize the military, and we don't have a national police force capable o' mass arrests. in 2020, the fed had to use disguised ice agents to do the white panel van operation. project 2025 and trump has both threatened to use the insurrection act regardless o' state desires. so not the same. have tried to explain this previous... ordinarily it is up to the states to decide whether to request fed troop assistance. is extreme few recent examples o' the fed not responding to state requests and sending in troops and the only post ww 2 examples we can think o' off hand is when Presidents sent troops to the south to protect school kids post brown v. board o' education, or when they ordered military to protect protesters from state governments related to mlk assassination, the aforementioned brown v. board and the civil rights act legislation. send troops into, just as rando examples, california, illinois, oregon or washington, to quell violence w/o state approval woulda' been viewed as unthinkable even by J. Rhenquist and the Court in 1992. today? am thinking trump gots a near guaranteed two votes no matter how outrageous the argument put forward by the government. am concerned any kinda violence by protesters is gonna be used as an excuse to do more illegal and impossible. in the summer o' 2020 we had more than a few folks on these boards buying into a conjured narrative o' chaos and violence supplied by fox news to legitimize white panel vans in portland and other nonsense. trump wanted to shoot lafayette square protesters in 2020. what do you think happens when something similar happens with trump 2.0? btw, a handful o' republicans in Congress voting with democrats could stop most o' this insanity, but so far the only thing moving the needle on trump's public opinion is his efforts to tank the world economy and the resulting damage done to the 401ks o' many o' his voters. so wrong. is freaking the 1920s-1930s all over again. HA! Good Fun!

am embarrassed we never made use o' the following 'til recent. https://www.kanopy.com/en/saclibrary/ get limited but generous use with our library card. am understanding most public libraries have similar features free for locals but for a small fee you may access nyc public library and others. via the service linked, we just watched the man with the golden arm, but there is a whole lotta newer titles available. probable watching dragonslayer (1981) next as it is one o' our top two-to-five fantasy movies. HA! Good Fun!

evidence old dogs may learn new tricks. am having spent many cumulative hours cleaning steel baking sheets after cooking. chicken fat is mild annoying, but sugars is especial tough to remove and am having used bar keeper's friend enough to eliminate our fingerprints when am too lazy to wear gloves in an effort to get rid o' carbon scoring. maintained as shiny as lancelot's armour from excalibur. we do have a few o' grandma's baking sheets, which look like cast iron pans with all the built up residue on 'em, but we rare used 'em 'cause they are complete flat and have no rims... save two smallish round sheets which were almost non functional for everyday uses. ... 'bout a year ago we tested grandma's compared to our shiny sheets. grandma wins for all but cookies or similar. the cast-iron black pans work far better for roasting protein and vegetables and they is virtual non-stick... almost, but not quite. roasted veggies come out particular fantastic on the blackened pans. have spent the past year effective seasoning most o' our baking sheets and metal cooking pans. HA! Good Fun!

this part is exactly right. doesn't much matter whether were delay or ignore when THE POINT were +3.5 years (at the time) o' illegal and impossible hadn't discouraged folks from claiming lack o' power to do ________ would be a limit on trump. is double amusing 'cause you went looking for a Gromnir first amendment post in support o' lexx's erroneous position when you were one o' the many folks we direct responded to insofar as the matter in question. could it happen here? was the system a prophylactic to trump authoritarian actions? our response to you specific in the summer o' 2020, as well as many similar posts, makes pretty freaking clear we were in no way suggesting that, "this can never happen here, it's all blown out of proportions!" (aside: the exclamation point should be a dead give away as is extreme rare we use such.) again, the fact you would search for a nonresponsive post in support o' lexx, and then offer him a gromspeak translation lifeline is funny particular as is now obvious we specific discussed the matter with you. how many people would read the quoted portion we shared-- "+3.5 years and people still aren't paying attention. the list o' things trump can't do that he has done or tried to do grows almost daily. started with the muslim ban and most recent we got him trying to alter how census is counted. "if senate refuses to stop trump, he may do just 'bout anything. if trump wants a delay o' election, he can get what he wants by refusing to let fed apparatus take and count votes. sure, there Court will overturn, but there will be a delay as Court does what it does in its own glacial manner, and even then, trump may simple ignore the Court and at such a juncture the only remedy is senate conviction after a house impeachment, and we have been down that road. "lack o' presidential authority is meaningless if senate won't stop him. "HA! Good Fun! "ps trump is current refusing to enforce the recent daca decision. why on earth is this not front page news? the Constitutional crisis stuff people were wailing 'bout during impeachment is happening as we speak. is just another story on page 8. " --and would see it mesh with, "it's all blown out of proportions!" to then feign bafflement after you dug up the actual relevant post is... predictable. freaking devil's carousel. HA! Good Fun!

what you actual said were... "I assume he knows he has no power over that. Well, or at least someone showed him, maybe via cartoon." our response, which were not new but already oft repeated... "+3.5 years and people still aren't paying attention. the list o' things trump can't do that he has done or tried to do grows almost daily. started with the muslim ban and most recent we got him trying to alter how census is counted. "if senate refuses to stop trump, he may do just 'bout anything. if trump wants a delay o' election, he can get what he wants by refusing to let fed apparatus take and count votes. sure, there Court will overturn, but there will be a delay as Court does what it does in its own glacial manner, and even then, trump may simple ignore the Court and at such a juncture the only remedy is senate conviction after a house impeachment, and we have been down that road. "lack o' presidential authority is meaningless if senate won't stop him. "HA! Good Fun! "ps trump is current refusing to enforce the recent daca decision. why on earth is this not front page news? the Constitutional crisis stuff people were wailing 'bout during impeachment is happening as we speak. is just another story on page 8. " maybe were digging, but is a post which is in direct opposition o' lexx's original claims... and yet you instead found an irrelevant first amendment post. heck, a couple posts later we even predicted the exact legal mechanism trump would use to challenge the election and we did so in the summer o' 2020. again, we said over and over that illegal and impossible were not barriers to trump. duh. being obtuse at this point. and our point is lexx glomp'd onto your possible excuse as to why he mighta' misunderstood us following your attempt to dredge up an irrelevant first amendment related post to explain lexx's claims about us suggesting it can't happen here. "I think that's it anyway, given the atrocious SNR with his posts sometimes." his desperation and your predictable clowning. shared fox hole o' those who has felt wronged. HA! Good Fun!

our response is gonna be unsatisfactory. There is a Constitutional crisis if scotus says there is a Constitutional crisis. in the garcia case, the issue o' most immediate concern, the Court did their effectuate v. facilitate silliness and so there is just enough ambiguity that the executive may implausible but perhaps legal realistic claim confusion. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/143-the-state-of-play-in-the-abrego highly recommended read. not too long. if you still have questions after reading, ask us and we will explain sans most o' the legal stuff. by the way, more than a couple dems makes it tough to take 'em serious if trump does explicit ignore the courts and they then complain. rules for thee but not for me. concerning to us personal, and no doubt confusing given our recent posts, is the fact all o' the legal debate ignores the more important questions o' right v. wrong. yeah, we must not ignore due process to get bad guys such as tren de aragua/ms-13 members... or trump, but debates over legal ignores far more important and fundamental questions o' right v. wrong. so much o' what trump is doing (has already done) should be seen as wrong/immoral/unthinkable by all those salt-of-the-earth christian americans who vote for trump regardless o' whether a court decides he can legal do. by constant debating the legalities, people are able to ignore the more important and fundamental questions o' right and wrong. worse, at some point people replace "right" with "legal" and the two is most assured not synonymous. slavery were legal for a long time. until more recent, it were legal impossible to sexual assault your wife. purchasing and displaying foam fingers at sporting events is legal, but we all know it is wrong. call out the wrong is a moral duty even if not a legal one. yeah, too many ignore due process when it suits 'em but even more sit quiet or only complain via text or post when they nevertheless witness wrongs being done. as we noted already, obama used the espionage act and other means to target fox reporters and tea party members. such were wrong then even when it were legal. you think trump is gonna show same "restraint" as the obama administration? a couple years past we noted how even after the Court ruled that use o' testimony induced by torture o' non citizens not on US soil were legal admissible if obtained pre trial, the biden administration vowed it would not do such a thing, declaring such acts repugnant. 'course is nothing stopping trump from ignoring biden's conscience. right. v legal. read the 2025 project and as each week passes, the trump administration checks off a new item from the authoritarian to-do list... and we ain't even three months in as o' today. we did think that the alien enemies act would be invoked and used sooner by trump, but he will get around to targeting individual american citizens before he finishes up with law firms and universities. so, we are most certainly already in a crisis situation, but until the Court says we got a Constitutional crisis, we don't, 'cause they were purposeful obtuse/vague. HA! Good Fun! ps speaking o' what trump may do to US citizens on US soil, before he ships 'em off to cecot, am suspecting the administration is purposeful trying to provoke summer 2020 kinda protests. have already mentioned the espionage act as a way to target reporters and likely lawyers, but the insurrection act is also a possibility. bush used the insurrection act in 1992 to send troops to la to quell riots. project 2025 anticipates the use o' the insurrection act and such should be chilling given the way they have bent and twisted the alien enemies act. also recall that when teslas were set on fire, trump claimed such were terrorist acts. as we has warned numerous times, identify a person or organization as a terrorist is a way to diminish due process rights, which is why we always balk at legal using domestic terrorist language. if somebody burns a tesla or poops in pelosi's desk, get 'em for vandalism or whatever is appropriate, but tack on terrorist label just to reduce due process strikes us as dangerous. tween insurrection act, patriot act and espionage act, trump is gonna have legal tools to disappear people or use the military to suppress 'em.