Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    38426
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. The "Get help now" is an amusing late night TV approach. Conspicuously missing from the Biden site. https://web.archive.org/web/20210730041951/https://civilrights.justice.gov/
  2. https://www.mlb.com/glossary/idioms/tootblan Also seems reminiscent of the French tout blanc, meaning all white, but don't see any connection.
  3. I may have inadvertently created that impression. One common pattern is gangs terrorizing families to pay tribute money. Another common pattern is to "take in" young children with candy and money and then start getting them to do random tasks of a non-criminal or minor criminal nature, so they are nominally "in the gang." When they get older, they must either get initiated by jumping in and committing a serious crime, usually murder, or face persecution.
  4. Well all they really ruled is that habeas corpus was the proper remedy and the case in front of Boasberg had dismissed the habeas claims in favor of the APA claims. When you add in that they expressly found Abrego Garcia entitled to due process in a properly vemued habeas case, the path is now open for more far reaching orders on deportation. Not that they'll do that but they mightif Xinis and the plaintiffs build a good record of contempt for due process and SCOTUS orders.
  5. And the more the argument is made in generalities, I think the easier it is for scotus to rule adversely.
  6. Young man yells at clouds. It's well-said, but storm and fury likely signifying nothing.
  7. Daily Mail polled a bunch of Brexiteers.
  8. Yeah, there was no mention whatsoever of maintained or increased prices or any kind of austerity, even temporary, by Trump. I think there may have been a few Trump apologists who recognized how disastrous this would all be that tried to temper it by saying it would be temporary.
  9. While your complaint is accurate, I think Judge Xinis is playing this just right. She's going to let the plaintiffs gather evidence of all this bullshit and make narrowly crafted orders that punish people and the administration rather than lose her temper and order something that might be appealable and easily struck down. She makes the point that everyone is talking in "generalities:" he's not back, due process, executive power/foreign relations/national security, and that's not really helpful. One of the problems is, we don't know what level of due process is really accorded to non-citizens. Clearly, the Supreme Court said "some due process," so that much is settled. For a US Citizen or a criminal defendant (citizen or not), failure to afford due process often results in nullification of the conviction. Outside that context, we don't know what the result of failure to afford due process is. Seems a "do-over" at minimum, but that doesn't necessarily mean Abrego stays.
  10. Xinis taking no shit from Ensign whatsoever. Going to have two weeks of expedited discovery of government officials, no holidays, no sleep til Brooklyn. Government will have the opportunity to object to discovery, but pretty clear how that's going to go, and it tends toward unappealable. Gonna start with the people that gave affidavits.
  11. Look at this cunt that is the general counsel of DHS. https://www.dhs.gov/person/joseph-n-mazzara Joseph N. Mazzara is a married father of six, a Marine combat veteran, and an experienced litigator. He graduated from Christendom College and Scalia Law, and clerked for Judges Edith Jones, Brantley Starr, and Stephen Vaden. Most recently he was Special Counsel to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Oh, and he seems to be an 8th year lawyer.
  12. Here's the latest status report. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/77/abrego-garcia-v-noem/ It says they'll deport him again anyway, apparently without due process. Getting closer to the outright "fuck you."
  13. I think they might try to preserve a scrap of their own power.
  14. I think how it might be couched is that, technicalities aside, Trump has violated the 5th and 14th amendments by denying due process. The courts assumed that they could provide a remedy for that that would include return of Abrego Garcia pending due process. Now that the executive has frustrated efforts to provide a remedy, compounding the constitutional violation, the courts will set aside technicalities like jurisdiction and whether APA or habeas corpus provides the remedy and simply enjoin further deportations. Vladeck articulated it much better than I could, but that, punishing the administration for its bad faith, is what I was driving at, along with some sanctions/contempt for individual actors. And, as Vladeck notes, as much as some of the Justices may sympathize with Trump, executive power, and deportations of dirty browns, endorsing executive contempt for rulings of the courts is a fast track to irrelevance for the Supreme Court.
  15. I don't think USAA's deterioration extends to refusal to pay claims. They just used to have really spectacular service, kid gloves stuff, and that has fallen off substantially.
  16. Yeah the presumption of innocence is just a bunch of words to people until they really have to think about it. And sometimes they never think about it until they are on the wrong end of am accusation from the government. Kind of like people think they understand the right to counsel and then misapprhend the criminal lawyer's job, which is to put the government through its paces, regardless of the seeming guilt, innocence, or worth of the defendant.
  17. I should have known it or at least suspected it, but Intuit/Lacerte is the devil incarnate. The gubmint has been trying to implement a free filing system that automatically populates your return with W2 and 1099 and lets you correct as needed. Lacerte has been fighting that tooth and nail forever with their bullshit "free filing." I think DOGE killed it for real.
  18. It could, but mostly in the case of the uber-wealthy who have a known history of flitting about the globe, but its the latter, a by-product of wealth, rather than wealth itself. It's mostly taken care of by surrender of passport. On the other hand, excessive bail can be challenged on the ground that it is unaffordable.
  19. People take legal commentary amazingly personally and read into it things that aren't there. Also, representing an incarcerated defendant is quite difficult. You can't just call him up and have a privileged conversation, or have him come by the office for lengthy discussion and witness prep. You have to do it at the jail, on their schedule, and take extra precautions to avoid eavesdroppers and waiver of privilege.
  20. I think one strategy for making sure anything FB does with your content is useful for site promotion is to make sure anything you post is well-branded with "Traces Of Texas" and the URL. That a) deters FB from using your material without credit (or at all) and b) insures that any use they make benefits you. I have never been a Facebook subscriber, so I have only relatively vague notions of how it's used for promotion by others.
  21. Customa enforcement against individuals buying for ostensibly personal use is erratic as hell. There has been an $800 exemption for things brought back from abroad for personal use. That is thought to extend to orders shipped from abroad as well but is unclear. And if it looks like it's for resale (multiple of the same item for example) then no exemption applies. Usually, if customs attempts to levy a duty or tariff, the shipper (FedEx or UPS etc.) will dun you for it before delivery and they have no interest in asserting the exemption on your behalf so it becomes a colossal pain in the ass to try to avoid it, even if you know the law and to assert it.
  22. Also regarding an antitrust claim against SEC or any other conference. Generally, to prove an antitrust claim, you have to prove that the defendant has a monopoly/market power {usually to "set prices") or is dangerously close and actively monopolizing. That can be tricky as hell, but was super easy for the NCAA because literally every university competing in athletics was a member and participant. They could hardly argue that they didn't have monopoly power, but rather argued that their existence and competition rules were justified by the interest in preserving amateurism. SCOTUS ruled that that was an insufficient justification and here we are. SEC and other conferences are a collusion of a relatively tiny fraction of the institutions engaged in athletic competition, so are far less vulnerable to having their competition rules challenged on antitrust grounds no matter how negative the effects on athletes.
  23. In this post, MAD means mutually assured destruction, right? Informative post. Also it should probably be noted re: House that college athletes have a "claim" against their institution's revenue that is hard to quantify. NiL is but a relatively small portion of the revenue claim that stems or stemmed from a blatantly unfair practice by institutions of selling players NIL rights to EA and with jersey sales, among other things. So House tries to compromise an employer that wants to minimize the claim and an employee that will have great difficulties proving the claim - - not that they are due something for their contribution but how much. So players now have the right to monetize their own NIL as well as a more general claim to a portion of revenues collected by institutions. They are pretty independent.
  24. Ron does make an interesting point, though, regarding Facebook TOS. If you put much beyond links to ToT content, you're giving Facebook a license to use that content for its own purposes. Maybe you consider that beneficial in terms of promotion, but it is a bit scary if the content goes beyond personal and into the realm of actually creative and "for profit."
  25. My position is elaborated above, in the preceding pages. It appears that Zuckerberg was not subpoenaed in the Murthy litigation, nor was the sworn testimony by affidavit taken from any Facebook employee. It's actually somewhat difficult to determine exactly what evidence was presented to the court. When you're prosecuting a case against the government about what it did to Facebook, you'd think testimony from Facebook, if not Zuckerberg that yes, the government coerced us, would be highly relevant to that case. And you would get it if you could. This is speculation, but it's educated speculation and really just common sense. You claim the government did unto Facebook, who in turn did unto you. If you are serious about winning that case (as opposed to just being performative, which is always a possibility) you do your damndest to secure evidence from Facebook that the government did unto them. Further, the Murthy case was well-publicized, and if you were onerously put-upon by the government, you'd think you'd step up and say something about it, or, if it didn't happen as the plaintiffs said, you should probably pipe up and say so. Facebook could have even intervened in the case to help keep the government off its back or to vindicate the government. Yet, Zuckerberg and Facebook were notably silent all during that case. Now, you could argue that it was politically motivated not to harm (or assist) the Biden Administration, just like it is obviously politically motivated to curry favor with the Trump administration. But you can't have it both ways: that the truth is finally revealed to the Trump administration. But only one of those administrations is known for being petty and retaliatory, both in threat and actuality.
×
×
  • Create New...