The All Things Political Topic - Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence

[Zoraptor]

Socrates actually got a jury trial, he wasn't tried in the Assembly and so not by popular vote. They even had balloted jury members rather than self selected. At 501 (most likely) it was certainly a big jury by modern standards, but nowhere near the (iirc) 6000 self selected needed for quorum in an Assembly trial.

That's kind of well known because of the odd fact that more jurists voted for Socrates' punishment to be execution than voted to find him guilty, which lead to the popular theory that at some point he decided to commit judicial suicide and deliberately antagonise jurors.

Edited April 16 by Zoraptor

[Malcador]

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/15/kilmar-abrego-garcia-deported-case-return

Administration must be shaking at that threat.  

[Gorth]

@Gromnir long time no see, welcome back (place was getting a bit boring )… you forgot the obvious example for dumb Europeans, democracy gave us The Third Reich

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, Gorth said:

@Gromnir long time no see, welcome back (place was getting a bit boring )… you forgot the obvious example for dumb Europeans, democracy gave us The Third Reich

Now we know Gromnir is alive what happened to @Keyrock?

[Pidesco]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

so, you aren't gonna admit you were talking out your piehole in regards to claims we dismissed the threat trump posed?

typical.

again, is Gromnir who pointed out time and time again that trump did illegal and s'posed impossible many times during his first term, but people kept pretending as if the next improbable were too unlikely to consider. we warned 'bout the second term precise 'cause the law failed to stop all but the worst o' trump efforts in term one.  am still baffled by the the trump derangement syndrome folks, pretending as if trump is normal.

even so we got no excuse for lexx clowning. makes stuff up and when confronted with mistakes via multiple posts where Gromnir said opposite o' what you claimed, you deflect.

aside, trump were never gonna be tried for inciting the insurrection for reasons we has stated ad nauseum... first amendment stuff. his january 6 case, which looked extreme strong before the immunity ruling and were not dead after the ruling, were not 'bout incitement. the january 6 case were hinging on the scheme to use fraudulent slates of electors to force the individual state legislatures to decide the Presidential election. legal stuff.

btw, we have had folks run for President from prison and such were perfect legal. the fact trump were able to become President in spite o' convictions and incitement is not only legal, but it is freaking democratic. The People voted for trump. maybe you didn't listen when we said the first half dozen times or so, but informed y'all that sentencing for felonies and even prison would would not necessarily prevent trump 2.0.  somehow you heard opposite? 

*chuckle*

The People voted against Socrates btw; is an education fail that so many forget such, eh. the athenians had a pure democracy, so were no need for a separate court system or a divided legislature as well as an executive. for the athenians, every trial were a popularity contest. 

and am fine with throwing guilty republicans and democrats in prison, but if you ignore the law, then next thing you know, it is ok to send people to a dystopian prison in el salvador without due process for no other reason than that the current administration says the folks disappeared deserved it. they deserved it or they are bad, is not enough. eventually, somebody in power might decide lexx or Gromnir is bad.

we spent a career representing people we disliked who had views we abhorred-- kkk, cultists, gang members, progressives. *shudder* the only speech, religious beliefs and associations which need protection is those which offend the majority. example: mlk never achieved even 50% popularity with the american public during his lifetime, and he were also disappeared (briefly) by the government. most americans once considered the naacp were to be a threat. 

lexx and Gromnir shouldn't be the ones deciding who deserves the protection o' the law. definite not lexx.

as an aside, there is current too many legal issues o' Constitutional import for us to cliff's notes 'em all... and we have been a bit busy. maybe take a stab at Gromsplaining one or two cases before we personal get gulaged. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Simple question : Constitutional crisis right now, yay or nay?

Less simple question : How bad is it right now for the rule of law in the US, by your estimation? 

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Lexx said:

Yeah, because I've read only like 5% of your post. I can't be arsed to deal with your weird wordings all the time. It reminds me of Ed from Cowboy Bebop and it really annoys me for some reason.

Maybe I misremembered some details from years ago, yet I believe my point stands, since you keep defending this crap with insisting on the law, which is kinda funny to me, because your politicians don't seem to be bothered with it at all.

 full o' it. again, we said opposite o' your claim over and over.

and if you were so unsure o' our meaning as you now suggest, then why have you made the same claim numerous times? 'cause you thought we were gone? if you call somebody out, multi times, you should be a bit more certain, yes?

*chuckle*

regardless, is so many times we chastised gd and others, post january 6 in particular, that your confusion rings hollow... save for fact you wanted it to be true? our frequent defense o' rule o' law coupled with your dislike o' Gromnir in addition to your own horrendous understanding o' due process led you to imagine us saying something straight outta a mirror universe episode?  many is the times we condemned boardies as they sought to diminish the events o' january 6, 'cause democracy held and trump were gone, yes? and even if january 6 had been successful, said many, trump woulda' eventual lost in the courts. the system worked, were the claim.

foolishness. we lamented, ad nauseum, that it were literal a handful o' people who had managed to save american democracy in late 2020 and early 2021 'cause were hardly a sure thing such heroics happen again. in fact, we lamented that history showed second coup attempts were tending to be more successful.

and again is Gromnir who has said, many times to the consternation of folks hereabouts, that democracy is not what saves american liberty. democracy is as often as not the threat to liberty. we sure as hell never suggested it could never happen here. for gawd's sake, we has recommended the following book more than once... though we once again note it ain't a great written novel even if it is worth reading. mr. lewis predicted an american trump kinda figure back in 1935. 

so, you latch onto a malc excuse for dear life and 'course he thinks that is funny.  again, malc were one o' the folks so demonstrably and obvious wrong 'bout trump in the summer o' 2020 and we chastised him specific. figures you two would glomp onto each other for comfort.

oh, and before we disappear once again, am gonna note the folks am most disappointed with in 2025 is libs. 'bout same number o' republicans voted for trump in 2024 as 2020. the problem is fewer democrats voted for harris as they did biden. is as much libs fault that trump 2.0 were realized. in late 2024 we no longer expected anything good from the republican party, so is only dems who could surprise and disappoint. harris lost in part 'cause far too many libs were angry about biden/harris failures on palestine, environmental promises, or the price o' eggs to vote for harris? couldn't get off their collective arses to vote against trump? didn't freaking learn anything from 2016, eh? 

is only in an opposite world or the star trek mirror universe you could possible read Gromnir's annoying repetitive warnings 'bout the current and future threat o' trump authoritarianism and somehow get the opposite.

guess is lucky this ain't mirror universe otherwise we know what would be the outcome for lexx and malc.

HA! Good Fun!

ps aside-- as an alternative to it can't happen here, we do recommend the following book:  the playbook : a story of theater, democracy, and the making of a culture war. a play based on sinclair lewis' book figures prominent in the work by james shapiro. the playbook is a well researched history book, is relative new, and is a moderate ez read. shows that much o' what is happening today ain't all that new.

Edited April 16 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

And the state of Canadian politics

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2156908/time-changed-for-french-language-debate-due-to-montreal-canadiens-game

It does make sense to change it as they want Quebecers to watch the debate, but does make amusing headlines.

[ShadySands]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Now we know Gromnir is alive what happened to @Keyrock?

I think he got fed up with forum software issues back when it was really bad

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Pidesco said:

Simple question : Constitutional crisis right now, yay or nay?

Less simple question : How bad is it right now for the rule of law in the US, by your estimation? 

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. 

Edited April 16 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

so, you latch onto a malc excuse for dear life and 'course he thinks that is funny.  again, malc were one o' the folks so demonstrably and obvious wrong 'bout trump in the summer o' 2020 and we chastised him specific. figures you two would glomp onto each other for comfort.

That took hunting down to see what you were talking about, I'd said he didn't have the power to delay, which I suppose he wouldn't have as the House was Democrat led at the time, even if the Senate would have been compliant.

Not really sure what you're on about glomping on, but knock on.

 

[Gromnir]

23 minutes ago, Malcador said:

That took hunting down to see what you were talking about, I'd said he didn't have the power to delay, which I suppose he wouldn't have as the House was Democrat led at the time, even if the Senate would have been compliant.

Not really sure what you're on about glomping on, but knock on.

 

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!

Edited April 16 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

Yep, that was the post I had to hunt down. Think you're confused though, and I wasn't explciit anyway,  I am replying to your link not your post, so the power is delaying the election, not your concern about accepting results.

Suppose it doesn't matter much anyway, was curious as to what you were referencing.

[uuuhhii]

the illusion of separation of power are shattered completely

the reverence for existing system was always pretence

smoke and shadow all along

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

 

Suppose it doesn't matter much anyway

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!

[Malcador]

Well Gfted asked, and I was bored so figured I'd give myself a quest, picked the wrong tab as the one I found seemed like what he was mentioning.  Not in support or not (although not sure what that'd be in support of).   I forgot how grave this place is for some.

And in the vein of things that don't matter - https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/16/politics/boasberg-contempt-deportation-flights/index.html

Surprised Musk isn't going in hard on this judge

[Gromnir]

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!

Edited April 16 by Gromnir

[Gorth]

Split off from old thread

 

I guess we look forward to another 3+ years of frequent thread splitting

edit: because someone is almost assured to take the troll bait coming out of the white house at least for a while yet

[rjshae]

US Supreme Court to hear birthright citizenship case on May 17

I am interested to see how SCOTUS rules on this issue, particularly with regard to birth tourism. Sounds like it all boils down to the interpretation of "jurisdiction" in the 14th amendment.

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, rjshae said:

US Supreme Court to hear birthright citizenship case on May 17

I am interested to see how SCOTUS rules on this issue, particularly with regard to birth tourism. Sounds like it all boils down to the interpretation of "jurisdiction" in the 14th amendment.

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.

Edited April 18 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/rfk-jr-autism-studies-environmental-toxins-rising-rates-rcna201582

Helpful approach to study to have a conclusion and work backwards, I suppose

[Gromnir]

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.

...

 

Edited April 18 by Gromnir

[rjshae]

6 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/rfk-jr-autism-studies-environmental-toxins-rising-rates-rcna201582

Helpful approach to study to have a conclusion and work backwards, I suppose

I hope we're not going to see a Lysenkoism-like campaign in the USA, but that seems to be the way the right is trending.

[Gromnir]

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!

 

[Malcador]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.html?unlocked_article_code=1.A08.gxfZ.fOAXlOzX7tdK

"The April 11 letter from the White House’s task force on antisemitism, this official told Harvard, should not have been sent and was “unauthorized,” two people familiar with the matter said."

 

[Gromnir]

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!

 

Edited April 19 by Gromnir